ANNODA PROSAD GHOSE Vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR GHOSE
LAWS(PVC)-1901-12-11
PRIVY COUNCIL
Decided on December 13,1901

ANNODA PROSAD GHOSE Appellant
VERSUS
RAJENDRA KUMAR GHOSE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Rampini and Pratt, JJ - (1.) The suit out of -which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff to obtain a declaration of title to and recover possession of a 6 gunda 2 kara 2 krant share in a certain revenue estate. The plaintiff alleged that he had purchased the share of one Jadav Chandra Ghose on the 22 August, 1894 at a sale in execution of a decree obtained against the heirs of Jadav Chandra Ghose. The sale was confirmed by the Civil Court on the 24th September of the same year. Subsequently, on the 30 December 1894, the share of Jadav Chandra Ghose in the estate was purchased by one Rup Lall Nag at a sale for arrears of revenue; and Rup Lall Nag is the defendant in this case against whom the plaintiff seeks possession.
(2.) The Lower Courts have found that the share of Jadav Chandra Ghose was registered in the Collectorate Register, and that a separate account had been opened with regard to it. They have held that at the sale for arrears of revenue, on the 31 December 1894, at which Ram Lall Nag purchased, he purchased the share of the estate recorded in the name of Jadav Chandra Ghose, and that, that being so, the plaintiff lost the title to the share which he had acquired by his purchase on the 22 August, 1894.
(3.) The Lower Appellate Court has held that the alienation in favour of the plaintiff did not amount to an encumbrance within the meaning of Section 54 of Act XI of 1859, and that the last clause of that section, to the effect that "the purchaser shall acquire the shave or shares subject to all incumbrances, and shall not acquire any rights which were not possessed by the previous owner or owners," does not in any way protect the plaintiff or save his property from passing to Rup Lall Nag at the sale for arrears of revenue.;


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