Skip to main content

Execution | S. Bhaskaran v. Sebastian, C.A. No. 7800 of 2014 13-09-2019 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | N. V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar & Ajay Rastogi, JJJ. S. Bhaskaran v. Sebastian, C.A. No. 7800 of 2014 13-09-2019



The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 47 – An executing court cannot travel beyond the order or decree under execution.

In the present case, the Trial Court had already considered the evidence on record and given a finding that the Appellant and his uncle were the trustees of the temple. Notably, U was a party to this suit and had contested it by filing a written statement, claiming to be the eldest son of S. However, at that time, he did not put forth any objections to the heir certificate of S, which was considered by the Trial Court while arriving at its finding. This judgment was confirmed by the First Appellate Court and no further appeal was preferred by the Respondents against it. In light of this, the findings of the Trial Court have become final, and U as well as the other Respondents are bound by them. By allowing them to re-open the question of trusteeship by way of an application in an execution petition, the High Court has gone beyond the decree to be executed and exceeded its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

500+ Supreme Court of India Judgments on Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Head Notes & Citations

1. Mallamma (dead) By Lrs. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [07-04-2014] 

Presumptions are the Bats of the Law, Flitting in the Twilight, but Disappearing in the Sunshine of Actual Facts [ORDER]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -  Section 138 -  failure on the part of the complainant to produce his account statement and absence of entry in accounts maintained by him regarding loan advanced to the accused, does show that there was no material to support the basic facts on which the entire case of the complainant was based. Sufficient material was available on record    whereby the defence of the accused became probable. In such a situation, the presumption under the provisions of the Act ceased to operate and the burden fell upon the complainant to prove his case, which he failed to do by placing on record cogent evidence.

When Magistrate may Dispense with Personal Attendance of Accused [SC Judgment] | First Law

Criminal Procedure Code, 1972 - Ss. 205 & 317 - Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused - Provision for inquiries and trial being held in the absence of accused in certain cases - Discussed.