SHIVA SANKAR GUPTA Vs. AJIT KUMAR GANGULY
LAWS(CAL)-1963-1-6
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on January 04,1963

SHIVA SANKAR GUPTA Appellant
VERSUS
AJIT KUMAR GANGULY Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

ISHAN CHANDRA SIRKAR V. BENI MADHAB SARKAR [REFERRED TO]
PRAMATHA NATH GANGOOLY V. KHETRA NATH BANERJEE [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHUNDER V. MUSSTT. HAMIRAN AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
BANKU BEHARI DEY V. HARENDRA NATH MUKHERJEE [REFERRED TO]
MAHARAJA OF BURDWAN V. APURBA KRISHNA ROY [REFERRED TO]
SARAT CHANDRA BANERJEE V. APURBA KRISHNA ROY [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHANDRA BABU LAL V. MULCHAND [REFERRED TO]
RUSTOMJEE DHANJIBHAI SETHNA V. FREDERIC GOEBALE [REFERRED TO]
KANHAYALAL HARMANTRAO V. REGINALD MATHOLOVE [REFERRED TO]
PRATAPMULL RAMESHWAR V. CHUNILAL JAHURI [REFERRED TO]
IN RE : BAI MOTIBAI [REFERRED TO]
KANHAIYALAL VS. D R BANAJI [REFERRED TO]
ANEM PEDDA SIVA PARVATHMMA VS. KRUSHNA CHANDRA SAHANI [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This is a suit seeking, in essence, to lift an attachment made in execution on April 3, 1946 of, amongst others, 10 Banerjee Lane, Calcutta, (shortened hereafter into "10") so that a deed of sale conveying "10" on March 29, 1952, for a consideration of Rs.21,500/- may receive full effect. As matters stand now, the vendee has retained out of the total consideration money of Rs.7000/- which he will pay to the vendor as soon as "10" is declared free from the said attachment.
(2.)The vendor is the plaintiff Ganga Prosad Gupta who raised this action on July 10, 1952. He died during its carriage leaving behind him surviving five heirs who have since been substituted in his place. The vendee is the third defendant, Niresh Nath Bhattacharjee. The decree-holder who levied execution and got "10" attached therein is the first defendant, Ajit Kumar Ganguly. The judgment-debtor in that execution is the second defendant, Umesh Chandra Sil, who again is the vendor of Ganga Prosad Gupta as respects his undivided one-fourth share in "10" and, therefore, the vendor's vendor of the third defendant to that extent. This then is a running introduction of the parties whom I shall call hereafter Ganga, Ajit, Umesh and Niresh.
(3.)The facts leading to this litigation need not be referred to further than as follows : In pursuance of a decree of this Court for specific performance of an agreement, Umesh, executed a conveyance on January 3, 1947 transferring, amongst others, his undivided onefourth share in "10" to Ganga, who, by other later conveyances, became the sole owner thereof. Seized of "10" so, he sold it to Niresh on March 29, 1952. But meanwhile Ajit armed with a decree against Umesh for Rs.5,500/- had proceeded in execution and got "10" attached on April 3, 1946 without the leave of the Court, so necessary, because of possession thereof by the receiver in a partition suit between Umesh and his co-sharers. This attachment came to be known on or about March 29, 1952 when Ganga conveyed "10" to Niresh, who withheld Rs.7,000/- out of Rs.21,500/- so long as "10" was not freed from attachment. In the circumstances what Ganga prayed, and now his heirs pray, the Court for, is a series of declarations the pith of which is that the impugned attachment is void and must be removed and also an injunction restraining Ajit from proceeding with the execution of his decree.


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