UMAJIRAO Vs. RAMSARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision against an order of the Civil Judge First Class, lashkar (sic), accepting the non -applicant Ramsaran's application under Order 21, Rule 100, Code of Civil Procedure The cant held a decree for arrears of rent and document (sic) from a house against the non -applicant Lakhmichand (sic). The house belonged to one Rao (sic) Bhonsle. After his death the Court of assumed the superintendence of his estate (sic) let out the house to Lakhmichand under a nya (sic). The suit in which the decree was passed as bassed on the kirayanama executed by Lakhamichand in favour of the Court of Wards. A decree rears of rent and ejectment was passed in fovour of the Court of Wards and against Lakhamichand. It appears that after the passing of this decree the Court of Wards relinquished the management of Rao Saheb Bhonsie's estate and handed (sic) the property to the applicant recognizing, in (sic) as Rao Saheb Bhonsie's heir. When Umajirao execution proceedings of the decree, the Milt -debtor Lakhamichand objected to the ruction (sic) of the decree by Umajirao on the ground the relinquishment of the management of Saheb Bhonsle's estate by the Court of Wards, widow (sic) Indrabai Bhonsle was in possession of property and as such entitled to execute the (sic) that after the passing of the decree Indrabai Bhonsle had realised from him the entire. It (sic) of rent and that she had also obtained (sic) the Judgment -debtor a kirayanama in her (sic).

(2.) IN my view, in holding that Order 21, Rule 102 was not applicable to the facts of the case, the learned Civil Judge has arrived at a wrong decision. Rule 102 reads as follows:

(3.) IN the order of the lower court is set aside and the application of Ramsaran under Order 21, Rule 100 is dismissed with costs in both Courts.