Whether judgment debtor can be arrested in execution of decree if cash is not available with him?

It was next argued that, as the appellant had not the means to pay the money due under the decree, no personal execution should be levied against him. It is admitted that the appellant is in possession of considerable properties which would easily enable him to pay off the decree. But what is argued is that the word 'means' occurring in Section 51 should be taken as equivalent to cash, and as the appellant says that there was no cash available with him, the order for arrest should not have been made. We are unable to accept that argument either. "Means" occurring in Section 51 can only mean realisable assets, and, as there is no doubt that the appellant has got sufficient assets from out of which the necessary moneys can be realised to pay up the decree amount, he will not be exempted by the provisions of Section 51 from being proceeded against personally for the realisation of the amount due under the decree.

Madras High Court

K.P. Mohamed Ibrahim vs The State Bank Of Travancore on 12 August, 1963

Equivalent citations: AIR 1964 Mad 233

Bench: S R Iyer, Ramakrishnan

Print Page

Whether daughters can be denied share in coparcenary property on ground that cash and jewellery are given to them?

Learned Counsel for the appellants argued that Sannamadaiah purchased a site in the name of the third plaintiff and gave gold and silver jewellery as well as cash to the first and second plaintiffs and therefore plaintiffs cannot claim any share in the suit properties. Admittedly, the defendants have not stepped into the witness-box to substantiate their contention, nor is there any plea in the written statement to that effect. Even assuming that Sannamadaiah had purchased a site in the name of third plaintiff and given jewellery and cash to other plaintiffs, the same cannot take away their legal right as daughters to claim a share in the co-parcenary properties by virtue of Section 6 read with Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act. Point No. 4 is therefore answered in the negative.

 Equivalent Citation: AIR2016Kant4, 2015(4)KCCR3091

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

Regular First Appeal No. 58 of 2014

Decided On: 07.09.2015

 Lokamani and Ors.  Vs. Mahadevamma and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:N. Kumar and G. Narendra, JJ.

Print Page

When Magistrate should release of cash on supratnama?

The recital in the sale deed that vendee has received the
entire consideration amount is not conclusive proof in support of
correctness of the recital. In the revision affidavits of Shivraj Kundu, Ved
Pal, Rohit Kundu, Rakesh Arya and Rajesh Mann vendees of sale deeds
No. 201, 202, 203, 204 and 206 respectively have been placed on record.
In the affidavits it has been stated that they had paid ` 75,000/- in cash
and handed over cheque of ` 6,00,000/- to Anil Talwar. The payment
through cheque was to be made after two months. Anil Talwar had sent
Rohit Kothal and Nitish Joshi and each vendee paid ` 6,00,000/- out of
the sale consideration to them. The money so apprehended by the police
on 18.4.2011 was paid by vendees to Rohit Kothal and Nitish Joshi.
10.
The Section 102 (1) Cr.P.C. provides that any police officer
may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have
been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create
suspicion of the commission of any offence. The petitioner in the reply
before learned Judicial Magistrate has not taken the plea that the
currency notes seized from Rohit Kothal and Nitish Joshi were
alleged/suspected
to
have
been
stolen
or
were
found
under
circumstances which creates suspicion of the commission of any offence.
The proceeding under Sections 41, 109 Cr.P.C. has already been closed
by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Paonta Sahib on 11.5.2011. Thus, there
is no foundation for seizing of ` 30 lacs by the police from Rohit Kothal
and Nitish Joshi on 18.4.2011.
11.
There is substance in the contention of the respondent that
even till now no other person except the respondent has claimed the
amount taken into possession by the police from Rohit Kothal and Nitish
Joshi on 18.4.2011. Rohit Kothal and Nitish Joshi moved an application
for release of the amount on the ground that the money was recovered
from them but the learned Judicial Magistrate did not release the amount
to them, but this does not mean that the respondent is not entitled to the
amount of ` 30 lacs recovered by police from Rohit Kothal and Nitish
Joshi.
12.
There is enough material on record that respondent had sold
his properties to various vendees vide sale deeds No.201, 202, 203, 204
and 206 for a sale consideration of ` 6,75,000/- each. He had received
` 3,75,000/- in cash from the vendees at the time of registration of the
sale deeds and balance amount of ` 30 lacs was paid to respondent by
the vendees through Rohit Kothal and Nitish Joshi. The learned Sessions
Judge has recorded a finding of fact which has not been shown to be
perverse. There is no error of jurisdiction. The view taken by the learned
Sessions Judge emerges from the material on record. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

Cr.MMO No. 110 of 2012

Date of decision: 30.10.2012
State of Himachal Pradesh  Vs  Anil Talwar 

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge.
Citation; 2013 CR L J 368 HP

Print Page