Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.01 seconds)
Documents citing Srimanta Seal vs Bindubasini Dasi And Ors. on 22 June, 1922

Asmatulla Pramanik vs Gamir Pramanik And Ors. on 25 February, 1929

3. This decision in Srimanta Seal v. Bindubasini Das has been strongly urged on behalf of the appellant in the present case. It is a matter for observation, however, that throughout the judgment the mind of the Court is directed entirely towards whether the defence of the paramount title " could " be set up in the mortgage suit; nowhere does it appear that the Court applied itself to the consideration of the question whether that was a matter which not only might but also ought to have been made a ground of defence in the former suit, within the meaning of Exp. IV of Section 11, Civil Procedure Coda. Unless both conditions are satisfied the rule will not apply.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Kedar Nath Ojha vs Kshiroda Dassya on 7 February, 1933

In support of this contention reliance has been placed on a decision of Asutosh Mookerjee, J., and Chotzner, J., reported in Srimanta Seal v. Bindubashini Dasi . Looking to the facts of that case it seems to us that it is very difficult to say that the principle laid down there, does not apply here, for there is no substantial difference between the facts of the case before Mookerjee, J., and the facts of the present case. Mr. Mukherjee who appears for the respondent has sought to distinguish that case on the ground that there the defendant who was held to be barred was the purchaser of the equity of redemption whereas in the present case she (defendant 8) was a lessee either from the mortgagor or from a purchaser of the equity of redemption. That fact however dots not make any difference in principle. The question is whether the defendant 8 who was filling two capacities viz: (1) her capacity as a lessee in which capacity she was entitled to redeem the mortgage and (2) the capacity as heiress of her alleged fourth son, could contend in the latter capacity that the entire mortgaged properties could not be sold as the alleged fourth son did not join in the mortgage. Mr. Mukherjee argues with great force that she could not raise this contention because that was a question of paramount title and could not be investigated in a mortgage suit.
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Koi Sahu vs Atul Krishna Ghose And Ors. on 25 April, 1929

9. The defendants have strongly relied upon the judgment of Mukerji, J. of the Calcutta High Court in Srimanta Seal v. Bindubasini Dasi 76 Ind. Cas. 517 : A.I.R. 1924 Cal. 138 : 38 C.L.J. 183. In that case however, which was heard in June 1922 the decision of the Privy Council above referred to was not cited. The facts were as follows: In July 1909, a family known as the Kundus executed a mortgage of their holding (which was not transferable) to defendants Nos. 1 and 2. In December of the same year their right, title and interest was purchased by one Barmani at a sale in execution of a money decree and the purchaser obtained delivery of possession in January 1910. In February Barmani assigned the holding to the plaintiff. The defendants (mortgagees) sued to enforce their security joining the mortgagors and along the plaintiff and obtained a decree. The plaintiff commenced the suit under discussion for a declaration of a title and for an injunction to restrain the execution of the decree alleging that the mortgage was inoperative because the holding was non-transferable and that the decree passed thereon was equally inoperative and he, moreover, set up a title which he did not claim as having come into existence prior to the mortgage but as constituted by settlement from the superior landlord taken in September of 1910. The learned Judge held that although the plaintiff had been joined in the mortgage suit as the purchaser of the equity of redemption by reason of his assignment from Barmani in February 1910 that he could nevertheless have set up his subsequent paramount title derived from the landlords and that the decree obtained in the mortgage suit was operative against him and that he was bound by the result of the sale in execution which was passed in his presence.
Patna High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

(Yennamani) Ramanna vs (Masunuri) Venkatanarayana on 6 September, 1926

10. The case in Srimanta Seal v. Bindubasini Dasi A. I. R. 1924 Cal. 138 to which Mookerjee, J. was a party is strongly relied upon by Mr. Lakshmanna for his contention that the plaintiff's suit is barred by res judicata. In that case the plaintiff sued for confirmation of possession upon declaration of title and for an injunction to restrain the execution of the decree. The suit property was an occupancy holding which belonged to a family of Kundus. In execution of a money decree their right, title and interest was sold on 15th December 1909. The purchaser obtained delivery of possession on 30th January following. On 16th February the purchaser assigned the holding to the plaintiff. On 7th July 1909, the Kundus had executed in favour of the defendants a mortgage of the holding. The mortgagees instituted a suit to enforce their security and made the plaintiff a party to their suit. The suit was decreed on 27th February 1914 aad the preliminary decree was made absolute on 29th September 1915. On 14th August 1918 the plaintiff commenced the present suit on the ground that the mortgage was inoperative because the holding was non-transferable, that the decree passed thereon was equally inoperative and that he had acquired a title independent of the mortgage under a settlement from the superior landlord taken on the 1st September 1910. The lower Courts dismissed his suit. The High Court held that his suit was barred by a previous suit. Mookerjee, J., observed at page 185:
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Yennamani Ramanna vs Masunuri Venkatanarayana on 6 September, 1926

9. The case in Srimanta Seal v. Bindubasini Dasi (1922) 38 C L J 183 to which Mookerjee, J. was a party is strongly relied upon by Mr. Lakshmanna for his contention that the plaintiff's suit is barred by res judicataIn that case the plaintiff sued for confirmation of possession upon declaration of title and for an injunction to restrain the execution of the decree. The suit property was an occupancy holding which belonged to a family of Kundus. In execction of a money decree their right, title and interest was sold on 15th December, 1909. The purchaser obtained delivery of possession on 30th January following. On 16th February the purchaser assigned the holding to the plaintiff. On 7th July, 1909, the Kundus had executed in favour of the defendants a mortgage of the holding. The mortgagees instituted a suit to enforce their security and made the plaintiff a party to their suit. The suit was decreed on 27th February 1914 and the preliminary decree was made absolute on 29th September 1915. On 14th August 1918 the plaintiff commenced the present suit on the ground that the mortgage was inoperative because the holding was non-transferable, that the decree passed thereon was equally inoperative and that he had acquired a title independent of the mortgage under a settlement from the superior landlord taken on the 1st September 1910. The Lower Courts dismissed his suit. The High Court held that his suit was barred by a previous suit. Mookerjee, J., observed at page 185:
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Musunuri Venkatanarayana vs Tennamani Ramanna on 4 February, 1927

2. We agree with the view taken by Devadoss, J., of the cases cited by the appellant; those relating to mortgagors' suits for redemption and possession ( such as In re Krishnaswami Pathan [1910] 9 M. L. T. 173 are distinguishable on the ground that the mortgagor seeks possession. As to the cases relating to mortgagee's suits for sale, it is true that some cases lay down that, when the joinder has been made and a decree was passed on the paramount title, it is not merely an irregularity which vitiates the finding. No case lays down that the defendant is bound to raise the question relating to the paramount title. We are not able to agree with the decision in Srimantha Seal v. Bindubasini Dasi A. I. R. 1924 Cal. 138 where no reasons are given for the view taken.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1