Conflicting Judicial Decisions Pertaining To The Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908
14. Subodh Chandra Nag V. K. L. Bank, AIR 1941 Cal 659, 660, 661 (RC Mitter & Khundkztr J.l.).
l5. Durgal'r;tsad v Srinfivassurcka, AIR 1930 Pat 368.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.77 seconds)Documents citing
Subodh Chandra Nag vs K.L. Bank, Ltd. And Ors. on 17 January, 1941
Thomas vs Thomas And Ors. on 6 June, 1990
The house property, not being the subject-matter of the suit, was found to be not liable to be excluded in determining whether the plaintiff is an indigent person. According to the learned counsel for respondents the equity of redemption is not the subject-matter of the suit and as such is not liable to be excluded. Attention is drawn to the decision in AIR 1941 Cal 659 Subodh Chandra Nag v. K.L. Bank, Ltd., wherein it was held that in a suit to enforce a mortgage, the equity of redemption in the mortgagor cannot be regarded to be the subject-matter of the suit, and that for the purpose of deciding the question as to whether the mortgagor who appeals is a pauper or not, the value of the equity of redemption cannot be excluded by the Court from its consideration. It has to be remembered that this decision was rendered at a time when the subject-matter of the suit was not excluded while ascertaining the sufficient means of the indigent person.
Gade Sreeramulu vs Matta Adinarayana Rao And Ors. on 26 August, 1983
In support thereof, the petitioner relied upon Subodh Chandra v. K.L. Bank Ltd., AIR 1941 Cal 659. No doubt, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that the equity of redemption is not the subject-matter of the suit. Much water carrying constitutional goals has flown under the bridges in the years followed. But the question is whether the respondents can be said to be possessed of sufficient means. As already stated, it is not in dispute that except the house the respondents do not possess any property and the said property is the subject-matter of the decree under appeal. The object of O.33, R.1 and O.44, R.1. is to enable the indigent person to lay an action in a Court to vindicate his rights and when he proves that he is not possessed of sufficient means to pay the requisite Court-fee, an enablement is provided by the Code permitting him to prosecute the proceedings without paying the court-fee.
Syed Zaleel Zare vs P. Venkatal Muralidhar And Ors. on 6 October, 1978
In Subodh Chandra v. K. L. Bank Ltd., AIR 1941 Cal 659 the provisions of O. 33, R. 1 were considered and it was held that the equity of redemption cannot be regarded to be the Subiect-matter of the Suit where the suit is for enforcement of the mortgage. It further held that the value of equity of redemption cannot be excluded by the Court from its consideration in determining whether the mortgagor is a pauper or not.
1