DURGA CHARAN SIRKAR Vs. STATE
LAWS(CAL)-1869-1-10
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on January 08,1869

DURGA CHARAN SIRKAR Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) In this case the facts appear to be that one Thakur Das Roy received a decree, in the Sealdah Small Cause Court, on the 21st February 1866, for Rs. 160, against one Ishan Chandra Chatterjee. Being desirous to execute this decree against the immoveable property of the defendant, he applied to the Judge's Court of the 24-Pergunnahs, under Section 20 of Act XI of 1865, for this purpose. That Court actually attached certain immoveable property of the judgment-debtor within its jurisdiction on the 23rd March 1868, the sale followed in regular course, and the property was sold to one Durga Charan Sirkar, on the 30th May, for Rs. 306. On the 15th March 1867, or rather more than a year after the first judgment was received, one Durga Charan Ghosal received a judgment against Ishan Chandra Chatterjee in the Court of the Principal Sudder Ameen of the same Zilla, and in execution of this decree, by proceedings in the Court of the Principal Sudder Ameen, he attached the same property. This was on the 9th March 1868, that is to say, 14 days before the attachment of the property effected by Thakur Das Roy. In consequence of some claim to the property made in the Principal Sudder Ameen's Court, there was some delay in proceeding with the execution in that Court, and during this delay the property was sold under the execution in the Zilla Judge's Court.
(2.) On the 11th of July, Durga Charan Ghosal made an application to the Zilla Judge of 24-Pergunnahs to set aside the sale to Durga Charan Roy, on the ground of certain irregularities, and the inadequate price obtained for the property. The Zilla Judge considered that Durga Charan Ghosal's application was inadmissible on two grounds: first, inasmuch as he was not the judgment-debtor; and, secondly, as it was not made within 30 days after the sale took place.
(3.) When, however, the Zilla Judge was called upon by the purchaser to confirm the sale, he conceived that he was at liberty to consider whether or no the judgment and sale had been made sufficiently public, and, generally, whether the sale ought to be confirmed.;


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