NANI LAL DE Vs. TIRTHALAL DE
LAWS(CAL)-1951-9-9
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on September 06,1951

NANI LAL DE Appellant
VERSUS
TIRTHALAL DE Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MERRY WEATHER V. NIXAN [REFERRED TO]
ADAMSON V. JARVIS [REFERRED TO]
PALMER V. WICK [REFERRED TO]
SMITH V. CLINTON [REFERRED TO]
BURNHAM V. BOYER [REFERRED TO]
KUBACH V. HOLLANDS [REFERRED TO]
NIHAL SINGH V. COLLECTOR OF BULAND SAHAR [REFERRED TO]
BISHNU CHARAN ROY CHOUDHURY VS. BIPIN CHANDRA ROY CHOUDHURY [REFERRED TO]
SASHI KANTHA ACHARJEE VS. PROMODE CHANDRA ROY [REFERRED TO]
KAMALA PROSAD SUKUL VS. CHANDRA NATH PRAMANIK [REFERRED TO]
KHUSHALRAO VS. BAPURAO GANPATRAO MARATHE [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

BALDEO TEWARI VS. HARBHAJAN SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-1962-12-5] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

R.P.Mookerjee, J. - (1.)This Rule was obtained on behalf of the plaintiffs and arises out of a suit brought by them for contribution. Both the Courts below have dismissed the plaintiffs' claim.
(2.)For a proper appreciation of the points in issue in the present matter the facts may be shortly stated. One Chandra Nath Bhattacharjya held a jama Rs. 33/- under the predecessor of the plaintiffs and defendant I, who were members of the same family. In 1875 Chandra Nath sold the holding to one Badal Giri. This transfer was recognised by the landlords and is supported by the entry in the records of rights as finally published. In course of execution of a rent decree obtained by the Dey landlords against the heirs of Chandra Nath, without impleading the heirs of Badal Giri, the property was purchased by defendant 2 Satya Charan Ghose. Satya Charan was resisted by the heirs of Badal Giri from taking possession of the holding. Defendant 2 thereupon brought a suit, with alternative prayers either to be put in possession on the property after declaration of his title' or for a direction on the decree-holders Deys to refund the purchase price by way of damages on the ground, that the latter, although cognizant of the fact that the heirs of Chandra Nath had no saleable interest in the tenancy in suit, had put up the holding to sale purporting the same to belong to the latter. The alternative claim for compensation as put forward by the present defendant 2 was decreed the original decree-holders Deys were asked to pay back the proportionate share of the purchase money taken by them. He put this decree in execution and attached an ejmali estate of the Deys Touzi No. 148/1 of the Hooghly Collectorate. The attached property was advertised for sale. The present plaintiffs who were part proprietors deposited the entire decretal amount on 9-6-1941 and thus saved the joint property from sale. It is now contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that defendant 1 was liable for a third share of the amount due under the decree obtained by defendant 2. Hence the present suit, for contribution with interest from defendant 1.
(3.)The learned Munsiff came to the conclusion that the members of the Dey family viz., the plaintiffs and defendant 1 should be considered to be joint tort feasors as being cognisant of the wrongful act they were committing by putting the property to sale though it was not the property of the judgment-debtors. There could be no contribution as between joint tort feasors. The 3earned District Judge affirmed this decision.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.