SUSAMA BALA SUR ALIAS SUSAMA DASI Vs. BIBHUTI BHUSAN MONDAL
LAWS(CAL)-1972-9-9
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on September 27,1972

SUSAMA BALA SUR ALIAS SUSAMA DASI Appellant
VERSUS
BIBHUTI BHUSAN MONDAL Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

GOUR MOHAN SETT V. GOKUL CHANDRA CHATTERJEE [REFERRED TO]
SANKAR MAWLI DUTT V. THE STATE [REFERRED TO]
SOURENDRA KUMAR SAHA V. BIBHUTI ROY [REFERRED TO]
TULSI CHANDRA SUKUL V. KANGALI CH. DAS AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]
BHUBAN CH. SADHUKHAN V. BISWANATH DEY [REFERRED TO]
SACHINDRA NAT DAS V. LILABATI DASI [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

BALAKRISHNAN VS. KRISHNAMOORTHY [LAWS(MAD)-1981-6-22] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-1981-9-16] [REFERRED TO]
SHANMUGHAM VS. PERUMAL NAICKER [LAWS(MAD)-1996-7-22] [REFERRED TO]
VENKATARAMAN ALIS MURALI ALIAS RAJA VS. R VENUGOPAL [LAWS(MAD)-2007-12-260] [REFERRED TO]
RADHABAI VS. ARUNAGIRI [LAWS(MAD)-2008-1-380] [REFERRED TO]
ADAIKAPPA CHETTIAR VS. AYESHA NATCHIAR [LAWS(MAD)-1975-2-17] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. R K RAJGHAVAN ALIAS R K SELVARAJ [LAWS(MAD)-1980-1-60] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)In this reference two questions have been referred to the Special Bench, to wit:
(1) What, in law, is the nature of a notarial bond (Gross Copy) under the French Law in relation to the Indian Law and what is the mode of its enforcement" (2) What, if any, is the law of limitation, applicable to such enforcement and what, if any, is the article of the Indian Limitation Act, applicable to such cases, after the introduction of that Act in the French territory of Chandernagore"

(2.)Originally the reference was heard by a Bench consisting of three learned Judges. As Their Lordships could not come to a unanimous decision, Their Lordships under Rule 6A read with Rule 9 of Chapter VII of the rules of the Appellate Side of this Court referred the matter to my Lord the Chief Justice for referring it to a larger Bench. Hence this matter has come before us.
(3.)The cases arises out of an objection petition filed under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure whereby the Appellant before us objected to the execution of a Grosses Copy of a Notarial Mortgage Bond executed by the Appellant on September 2, 1949, in the City of Chandernagore, then a part of the French Republic. Chandernagore until it was defacto transferred to India on May 2, 1950, was governed by the French Laws. A Decret which corresponds to an Ordinance or Regulation in our country was promulgated on November 23, 1887, by the Governor of French India. The said Decret was in regard to the organization of the profession of Notaries. According to the profession of Notaries. According to the said Decret, a Notary or Notarie was a public officer appointed to take charge of deeds and contracts for the purpose of authenticating the same. The party had to deposit the original deed before the Notary and obtain the authenticated copy known as 'Grosses Copy'. A mortgage bond deposited with a Notary, a 'gross copy' whereof used to be delivered to the mortgagee, was made out in an executory form, that is to say, in the same terms as a judgment of a Court of Law. If the mortgagor defaulted in payment of the mortgagee's dues under the mortgage within the stipulated date, the grosses copy of the mortgage bond could be executed as a decree of a Court of Law in accordance with Article 545 of the French Civil Procedure Code. To bring the law applicable at Chanernagore in conformity with those in West Bengal after Chandernagore was transferred to India, do facto and then de jure several orders were promulgated and/or statutes enacted.


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