Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.43 seconds)
Documents citing Punchanun Bundopadhya, Minor By His ... vs Rabia Bibi And Ors. on 18 June, 1890

Upendra Nath Kalamuri vs Kusum Kumari Dasi on 5 June, 1914

We may add that the decision of the Full Bench in Punchanun v. Rabia Bibi (1890) I. L. R. 17 Calc. 711, on which reliance was placed by the appellants, is not directly in point and does not assist their contention. That case is an authority only for the proposition that when X, in execution of a decree for money against Y, seeks to proceed against Z as the legal representative of Y, who is liable only to the extent of the assets of Y in his hands, and a question arises, whether a particular property does or does not constitute such assets, it must be determined by the execution Court under Section 47 of the Code.
Calcutta High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Fakir Chandra Gain vs Giribala Dassya on 15 February, 1915

328 : 20 C.L.J. 485 : 19 C.W.N. 520 : 42 C. 440. is difficult to distinguish from the case of Punchanun Bundopadhya v. Rabia Bibi 17 C. 711 although the learned Judges who decided that case appear to have found reasons satisfactory to themselves which would differentiate the case from that reported in 20 C. L. J. All that is necessary for us to state in the present case is that we are bound by the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Punchanun Bimdopadhya v. Babia Bibi 17 C. 711. The present appeal, therefore, fails and must be dismissed with costs, one gold mohur.
Calcutta High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Baidya Nath Banerji vs Himangsu Bala Bose And Anr. on 24 September, 1948

572: 3 P. L. T. 613) were that a decree obtained against Mr. Stephen in 1909 was, after his death, being executed against his legal representatives, including, among others his widow Mrs. Margaret Anne Stephen, and she claimed the property, which was being proceeded against, as belonging to her personally Following Punchanun Bundopadhya v. Rabia Bibi, 17 Cal. 711 (F. B.), it was held that the objection was within the meaning of Section 47, Civil P. C. Mr. De has contended that the case is distinguishable from the present one on two grounds, namely, that, in this case, the decree was obtained against opposite party No. 1 and she was not merely brought in at the execution stage, and, secondly, that her claim to the property was put forward during the pendency of suit before there was any question of execution. Section 47, Civil P. C. how ever, relates to questions arising between "the parties to the suit ..... or their representatives". I do not think, therefore, that it can make any difference that the objection in question is filed by a person who is the judgment-debtor and not by one, who, is the judgment-debtor, having been impleaded in the suit as the legal representative of the executant of the handnote, and not by a person, who, after the decree was obtained against the executant of the handnote, was substituted as his legal representative in the course of the execution.
Patna High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Dulla And Anr. vs Shib Lal on 23 June, 1916

The moment he is a party the consequences of his being a party follow upon that conclusion, and the result is that what appears to be the last decision on the points, namely, Punchanun Bandophadhya v. Rabia Bibi (1890) I.L.R. 17 Calc. 711 is decisive on this matter. In that case it was laid down, following the principles already established by the earlier decisions of this Court, that an objection taken by a person who has become the representative of the judgement-debtor in the course of the execution of a decree to the effect that the property attached in satisfaction thereof is his own property and not held by him as such representative, is a matter cognizable only under Section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure and not the subject-matter of a separate suit. The result is, therefore, that the judgement of the lower appellate court is right. It seems to me that there might have been some reason to question whether in this particular instance the mother, being a party herself to the original liability and personally liable under the decree, was a suitable guardian of the minor. I do not think it is open to us to deal with the point in this suit. Nothing we decide will prevent the minors from taking such steps as they may be advised to set aside the sale under the decree. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dulla, Major And Anr. vs Shib Lal on 23 June, 1916

The result is that what appears to be the last decision on the point, namely, Punchanun Bundopadhya v. Rabia Bibi 17 C. 711 is decisive on this matter. In that case it was laid down, following the principles already established by the earlier decisions of this Court, that an objection taken by a person who has become the representative of the judgment-debtor in the course of the execution of a decree, to the effect that the property attached, in satisfaction thereof is his own property and not held by him as such representative, is. a matter cognizable only under Section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure and not the subject-matter of a separate suit. The result is, therefore, that the judgment of the lower Appellate Court is right. It seems to me that there might have been some reason to question whether in this particular instance the mother, being a party herself to the original liability and personally liable under the decree, was a suitable guardian of the minor. 1 do not think it is open to us to deal with the point in this suit. Nothing we decide will prevent the minors from taking such steps as they may be advised to set aside the sale under the decree. The appeal is dismissed with costs, including fees in this Court on the higher scale.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Naida Basmi Majhi And Ors. vs Rajendra Chandra Mala And Ors. on 10 September, 1928

168 : 39 C. 298 : 14 C.L.J. 425 : 16 C.W.N. 26 which is a case converse to that of Punchanun Bandopadhya v. Rabia Bibi 17 C. 711.(F.B.). Upon this principle the present suit is not maintainable. We have gone through the plaint in order to discover whether the plaintiffs desired to set aside the original decree on any ground of fraud But there is no such allegation. The plaintiffs only asserted their own independent title derived from their maternal grandfather. Under the circumstances, in my judgment, the Subordinate Judge was right in his conclusion and the appeal is, therefore, allowed. The order of the District Judge is set aside and the decree of the Subordinate Judge restored with costs in this Court as well as in the lower Appellate Court. The hearing-fee is assessed at five gold mohurs.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Madhusudan Das And Anr. vs Gobinda Pria Chowdhurani on 12 July, 1899

3. It undoubtedly does apply as regards the parties, for there is on the one side the plaintiff, who is the decree-holder and the auction-purchaser, and on the other the representatives of the judgment-debtor. The fact that they claim the jote not through the judgment-debtor but adversely to him would not prevent the operation of Section 244 see Punchanun Bundopadhya v. Rabia Bibi (1890) I.L.R., 17 Cal, 711. The plaintiff is also none the less a party to the suit because she happens to be the auction-purchaser. Is then the question raised one relating to the execution of the decree? That question is whether the jotes sold at the execution sale belonged to the judgment-debtor or to the persons who now represent the judgment-debtor, and from whom it is sought to obtain possession with the aid of the Court. There is also another question involved, and that is whether, having regard to the provisions of the Tenancy Act (if those provisions apply) the jotes were not properly sold in execution of the decrees obtained against the appellants' father so as to bind the appellants even if the jotes do belong to them.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next