Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SubmittedBy:-
RAJEEV RAJ
B.A., LL.B:- viith Semester
Enrollment- CUSB1513125033
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
You are most welcome in my case law project work of “Interpretation of statutes” on the topic
“Jugal Kishore Saraf v. Raw Cotton Co. Ltd. AIR 1955 SC 376”. This Case Law project is
given by our respected subject professor “Dr. Avinash Kumar” and first of all I would like to
thank him for providing me such a nice case law topic and making me aware as well providing me
a lot of ideas regarding the topic and the methods to complete the project.
I would like to thank all the Library staffs who helped me to find all the desired books
regarding the case law topic as the whole project revolves around the doctrinal methodology of
research. I would like to thank to my seniors as well as classmates who helped me in the completion
of this case law project. I would also like to thanks to Google, Wikipedia, into legal world as well
as other web sites over web which helped me in the completion of this project. Last but not the
least; I would like to thank all who directly or indirectly helped me in completing of this project.
I have made this project with great care and tried to put each and every necessary information
regarding the topic. So at the beginning I hope that if once you will come inside this project you
will be surely glad.
`
NAME OF THE CASE
Jugalkishore Saraf vs Raw Cotton Co. Ltd on 7 March, 1955
Equivalent citations: 1955 AIR 376, 1955 SCR (1)1369
Vs.
ACT: Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of 1908), s. 146, Order XXI, rule 16 Debt transferred
pending suit thereon decree not mentioned in deed-Execution of decree application by transfere
applicability of Order XXI, rule 16 and section 146 Equitable principles Transfer of property
Act(IV of 1882), sections 3, 5, 8 and 130.
Facts of the case
Jugalkishor Saraf filed a suit against the appellant for recovery of money and during the pendency
of the suit a document was executed on the 7th February, 1949, whereby Jugalkishor Saraf
transferred to the respondents all -book and other debts due to them together with all securities for
the debts and all other property to which they were entitled in connection with their business in
Bombay. One of the book debt was the subject matter of the suit, but there was no mention in that
document of the suit or the decree to be passed in the suit. The respondents did not take any steps
under Order XXII, rule 10, of the Code of Civil Procedure to get themselves substituted as
plaintiffs in the place of Jugalkishore Saraf but allowed the suit to be continued in the name of
the original plaintiffs, and on the 15th December, 1949, a decree was passed in favour of
Jugalkishore & Saraf against the appellant.