LexNARHARI AND OTHERS versus SHANKAR AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1950] \950 of authority is against the proposition that a widow as an unsecured creditor has any priority over the K•P 0 " Chand other unsecured creditors of her husband. In our v. K".d"' u""'"' opinion, the above mentioned two Allahabad decisions B•~um .t Oth"'· do not lay down the law correctly on this point and the rule has been correctly laid down in Ameer Kha.l•lus.oman "· Ammal v. Sankaranarayanan Chetty ( 1). There is nothing repugnant or inequitable according to the principles of Muhammadan Law in the estate of a deceased Muslim being rateably distributed between the unsecured creditors. For the reasons given above we hold that the objection raised by the widow had no substance in it and the executing court should have directed the pro- perty to be sold and the sale proceeds distributed rateably amongst the decreeholders and the widow. In the result we allow this appeal, set aside the judg- ments of the two courts below and direct the execut- ing court to proceed with the execution in accordance with the observations made herein. In the circum- stances we will make no order as to costs of these proceedings. Appeal allowed. 1 9~0 f!N THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (HYDERABAD).] Oct. JR. NARHARI AND OTHERS v. SHANKAR AND OTHERS. [MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, R. S. NAIK and KHALILUZZAMAN JJ.J Res iudicata-Severai a.ppeals arising out of sam' suit-Appeal disposed of by same judgment-Separate decrees drawn "p-Appeal from, orie decree only-Maintainability-Res judicata-Limitation Act, 1908, s. 5-Extension of time-Sufficient cause-Conflict of decisions . ..4. instituted a. suit for possession of two-thirrls share in an estate against B and 0 who cloimed a one-third share each in it. The suit was decreed by the trial court. B ant! 0 preferred (I) I.L.R. 25 Mad. 658. •' • " S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 755 separate appeals. These appeals were heard togethe.r and 1900 disposed of by the same judgment but sepa.rate decrees were prepared; A preferred an appeal from one of these decrees in Narhari a.nd time paying the full court fee anl later on, after the period of Othm limitation had expired, preferred an appeal from the other decree v. also. paying a court fee of Re. 1 only. The High Conrt held that Shankar and A shoula have filed Repante appeals within the period of limita- Others. 1.i on and that, inasn_1uch as one of the appeals was time-barred, che first appeal was barred by res judicata. Held, that, as there was only one suit and the appeals hon been disposed of by the same judgment, it was not necessary to file two separate appeals and the fact that one of the appeals waH time-barred did not affect the maintainability of the other appeal and the question of res judica.ta did not a.t all arise in the case. Held further, that in the circumstances the High Court,, .. , wrong in not giving to the appellant the benefit of s. 5 of the Limitation Act as there was a conflict of rulings on the subject. Mst. Lachmi v. Mst. Bhuli (A.I.R. 1927 Lob. 289) applied- Appa v. Kach"i B<ryyan Kutty (A.J.R. 1932 lliad. 689) referred to. APPEAL from a judgment of the High Court of Hyderabad under article 374 (4) of Constitution: Appeals Nos. 22 and 23 of 1950. Ghulam Ahmad Khan, for the appellants. The respondents were not represented. 1950. October 13. The judgment of the Court was delivered by NAIK J.-The suit out of which these appeals arise Na.;k J. was one for possession of two-thirds of the land covered by survey No. 214 and formesne profits. The plaintiffs claim possession on the ground that survey No. 214 was an inam land and according to the family custom, belonged to them exclusively as members of the senior line as against the defendants who were of the junior lines. There are two sets of defendants: Nos. I to 4 belong to one branch of the family and Nos. 5 to 8 to another. Each set claim that they are in possession of orie-third of the land and maintain that they are entitled to it as their share of the family property. They deny the custom of exclusive possession by the senior branch, alleged by the plaintiffs. The trial court decreed the suit. From this decree, two separate appeals were· taken by the two sets of the defendants to the Sadar - &.\\a\at, G\l\barga, each daimin~ one-third portion of 1960 Narhari tuid Others S h€lnkar a11d OthtffS Naik J. 756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1950] the land and eac
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.