MANINDRA NARAYAN DHAR Vs. JYOTSNALATA DEBI
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Manindra Narayan Dhar
Referred Judgements :-
PHANIBHUSAN MUKHERJEE,RECEIVER V. RAI BAHADUR PURNA CHANDRA BAGCHI
RAI JOGENDRA CHANDRA GHOSE BAHADUR V. BHAWANI CHARAN LAW
<RC>LAWSUIT(CAL) 1960 0 286;ILR(CAL) 1961 1 911;</RC>
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
<JGN>P. N. MOOKERJEE,SEN</JGN>
MANINDRA NARAYAN DHAR
<AT>APPEAL FROM ORIGINAL ORDER 256 OF 1956</AT>
BENGAL TENANCY ACT,1885 SEC 169(1);BENGAL TENANCY ACT,1885 SEC 169;BENGAL TENANCY ACT,1885 SEC 168A;BENGAL TENANCY ACT,1885 SEC 169(1)(C);BENGAL TENANCY ACT,1885 SEC 169(1)(B);BENGAL TENANCY ACT,1885 SEC 168A(1)(B);BENGAL TENANCY ACT,1885 SEC 169(7)(C);BENGAL TENANCY ACT,1885 SEC 168(1)(B);BENGAL TENANCY ACT,1885 SEC 169(1)(A);BENGAL TENANCY ACT,1885 SEC 169(1)(D);BENGAL TENANCY ACT,1885 SEC 168A(2)(B);BENGAL TENANCY ACT,1885 SEC 169(1)(R);
<ACT>BENGAL TENANCY ACT,1885</ACT> <S>S.169(1)</S><ACT>BENGAL TENANCY ACT,1885</ACT> <S>S.1
LABPUR ZEMINDARIES LTD. V. NARAYAN CHANDRA RAIMAHASHAYA
NARESH CHANDRA BOSE VS. BHUPENDRA NARAYAN SINHA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)This appeal raises a short but interesting question under Section 168A of the Bengal Tenancy Act.
(2.)The appeal is by the Plaintiff decree-holder and it arises out of an execution proceeding, following a rent suit, in which a decree was passed for arrears of rent, cesses, etc. The decree was made on September 23, 1953. It was, in substance, in favour of the two decree-holders,-one, the original Plaintiff, decree-holder, and the other, the co-Plaintiff, decree-holder,--for Rs. 6,239-6-6 pies and Rs. 236-15 as., respectively. The decree was put into execution and it was sought to be executed,--and actually executed,-against the defaulting tenure (darpatni), which was sold on May 15, 1954. The sale price was Rs. 7,001 and the purchase was made by a stranger auction-purchaser, Sm. Radharani Dasi. At the time of the sale, the outstanding decretal dues amounted to Rs. 4,698-10 as., due to certain payments having been made by the tenants judgment-debtors, and duly deducted from the original decretal dues,-between the date of the decree and the aforesaid sale. There were thus surplus sale-proceeds to the tune of Rs. 2,302-6 as., after satisfaction of the above decretal dues.
(3.)On January 27, 1955, the decree-holders applied to the court below stating that the above surplus sale-proceeds, along with a further payment of Rs. 4,266-5-4 pies, made by the stranger auction-purchaser to the said decree-holders, amounting to Rs. 6,568-11-4 pies, had satisfied their claim for subsequent rent, as contemplated under Section 168A(1)(b) and 169(7)(c) of the Bengal Tenancy Act and, accordingly, the sale may be confirmed and the execution case may be dismissed on full satisfaction. On this application, which was not opposed by any of the parties, the court directed confirmation of the sale and dismissal of the execution case on full satisfaction, with a rider that the surplus sale-proceeds (Rs. 2,302-6 as.) were to be transferred to the credit of the judgment-debtors,-this obviously being an accidental slip or an inadvertent mistake in the circumstances of this case. Any way, this mistake remained on the record.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.