Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.55 seconds)
Documents citing Surja Narain Mandal vs Nanda Lal Sinha on 13 July, 1906

Ulfat Hossain vs Gayani Dass on 18 May, 1909

It is true, as has been argued before us, that that case was decided on the respective rights of a mortgagor and mortgagee, but the fact that the brits merged in the talukdars' interest is an essential portion of the grounds for the decision arrived at. Considering the authority of this case and the view that has been taken of its application in Surja Narain Mandal v. Nanda Lal Siriha (1906) I.L.R. 33 Calc. 1212) we consider that we must treat the mokarari has having merged in Rai Radha Kissen's superior interest. It has been attempted to show that Rai Radha-Kissen treated the mokarari interest as subsisting after his purchase, and that it would have been to his interest to do so; because in the event of a Revenue Sale of the share it would not have been affected. There is no direct evidence that he did so treat it, and the argument that he must be taken to have done so to protect himself against a Revenue Sale seems to be amply met by the fact that a Revenue Sale took place within a year of his purchase, and yet he has in his statement of claim expressly disclaimed any right to take advantage of the mokarari.
Calcutta High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Amatoo And Sheik Hassan Ali vs Sheik Muksud Ali And Ors. on 31 August, 1914

In the case of Surja Narain Mandal v. Nanda Lal Sinha 33 C. 1212 reference was no doubt made to the remarks of the Privy Council in the case of Raja Kishen Datt Ram v. Rajah Mumtaz Ali Khan 5 C. 108 : C.L.R. 213 : 5 I.A. 115 : 1 Sur. P.C. J. 17 : 3 Suth. P.C.J. 637 : Ralique and Jackson's P.C. No. 58 : Ind. Jur. 426 : 2 Shome L.R. 1 but the case was decided on the ground that the ground that the aequisition by the mortgagor enured to the benefit of the mortgagee and enhanced his security.
Calcutta High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Rambishen Dutt vs Haripada Mukerjee And Ors. on 26 March, 1919

On the other hand, we have another class of decisions which support the proposition that although, in eases not touched by the Transfer of Property Act and the Bengal Tenancy Act, the union of the superior and subordinate interests may not automatically cause a merger of the latter in the former, the conduct of the party concerned may show that he did not intend to keep the two interests alive as mutually distinct rights; see Prosunno Nath Roy v. Jogut Chunder Pundit 3 C.L.R. 159; Suraj Narain Mandal v. Nanda Lal Sinha 33 C. 1212; Ulfat Hossain v. Gayani Doss 3 Ind. Cas.
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Behari Lal Sen vs Indra Narayan Bandopadya And Ors. on 31 March, 1927

11. First, Surja v. Nanda Lal Sinha [1906] 33 Cal. 1212, where it was held that, apart from any question of Section Ill of the Transfer of Property Act or from any question of merger, where A mortgaged a chak and subsequently acquired the maurashi makarari interest in the chak, the purchase of the mokarari was an accession to the mortgaged property under Section 70 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Calcutta High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Mysore Kopniah Sivananjiah And Ors. vs K. Sithay Goudar And Anr. on 14 March, 1921

8. The case of Surya Narayan Mandal v. Nanda Lal Sinha (1906) I.L.R. 33 C. 1212 Which the Subordinate judge incorrectly thought to be on all fours with the present case, was an instance of the merger of two interests, the Shikmi interest and the mokarari interest in the same land (chuck). The sale took place in 1902 after the Merger had been effected by the purchaser in 1886 by one of the mortgagors of the mokarari interest in execution of a decree obtained against the holders of the mokarari tenure. Thus it was a clear case of accession. In the case before us there are not two interests in the same land, but two different lands.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Haradhan Chakerverty vs Hargobind Dutta on 3 May, 1921

2. The meaning of the section has been explained by giving two illustrations to it. The one refers to an increase in the land originally mortgaged by means of alluvion. The other refers to a certain plot of building lard originally mortgaged on which was subsequently erected a house. In these illustrations there was undoubtedly an accretion to the mortgaged property. The Courts below have relied upon the case of Surja Narain Mandal v. Nanda Lal Sinha 33 C. 1212 in support of their view that the brahmottar right subsequently acquired by the judgment debtor was an accretion to his original mukarrari right in the property. In that case the mortgagors had a shikmi right in a taluk at the time when the deed of mortgage was executed. Subsequently they acquired a mukarrari interest therein and it was held that the latter right was an accretion to the original shikmi right aid that the mortgagee was entitled to treat the subsequent enlarged right as security.
Patna High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1