Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.83 seconds)
Documents citing Smt. Binapani Devi W/O Babu Behari Lal ... vs Banku Behary Mondal And Ors. on 16 April, 1943

Safedali Fakir vs Sm. Radharani Deb on 14 June, 1950

9. Mr. Mitter, learned Advocate for the defendant-appellant, has referred us to the case of 'Sm. Binapani Devi v. Banku Behari', 47 Cal WN 651, 'Kamalakshya Choudhury v. Joychand Lal', 48 Cal WN 105, 'Menajuddin v. Heronuddin Mullick', 51 Cal W N914 and 'Nrisingha Prosad Bose v. Nilratan Singha Roy', 54 Cal W N 683 and has contended that as in the present case Maneswari Dasi, the defendant in the rent suit and the judgment-debtor in the rent execution case, had lost her interest in the occupancy holding before the passing of the decree for rent, the decree was not a rent decree and the resultant sale in execution had not the effect of a rent sale and did not pass the occupancy holding to the purchaser at the sale did not confer on him the rights specified in Section 159 of the Act.
Calcutta High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Giridhari Mohanty vs Abdul Khan And Ors. on 20 January, 1949

Similarly, it has been held-in the case of Smt. Binapani Debi v. Banku Behari Mandal, A. I. R. (30) 1943 Cal. 475 : (209 I. C. 237) that if the tenant loses the interest before execution of the rent decree, the execution sale will not be competent so as to convey the holding to the purchaser. Mr. Pal, therefore, contends that the case will be different if the holding is dealt with by way of transfer during the pendency of the execution proceedings, when according to him it becomes a proceeding in which 'any right to immovable properties directly and specifically in question.' This leads us to consider whether the charge declared in Schedule 4 is a charge within the meaning of Schedule 00 so as to attract all the provisions of the Act in respect thereto. If the matter was res integra, I could hold otherwise, but it is covered by abundance of authorties that a suit for enforcement of a charge is a suit relating to immovable property for the purpose of Schedule 2, T. P. Act.
Orissa High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Menajuddin And Anr. vs Heronuddin Mullick And Ors. on 28 May, 1946

4. Mr. Jitendra Nath Guha has challenged the propriety of the decision in referred to above on the ground that the learned Judges in deciding this case did not advert to or consider the effect of Sub-section (2) of Section 146A, Bengal Tenancy Act. In our opinion, that contention really is of no substance. Section 146A contemplates a case where there are more than one tenant on the land, and Sub-section (2) provides that even if some of the cosharer tenants are left out in a rent suit, but still if the defendants to the suit represented the entire body of the cosharer tenants, the decree would have the effect of a rent decree and the sale would have the same consequences as the sale of a holding or tenure under chap, XIV, Bengal Tenancy Act. The decree would not cease to be a rent decree by reason of the fact that all the tenants were not impleaded as parties defendants to the rent suit, nor, on the other hand the sale would cease to have the effect of a rent sale by reason of all the tenants not being proceeded against as judgment-debtors in the execution proceedings. But if for any other, reason other than the non-joinder of all the tenants as parties defendants to suit, the decree cannot have the effect of a rent decree, or the sale in execution of that decree cannot operate, as a sale of the holding or tenure as contemplated by chap. XIV, Ben. Ten. Act, Section 146A, Ben. Ten. Act, has got absolutely no bearing on the question. This has got to be decided on the other provisions of law laid down in the Bengal Tenancy Act. If under Section 65, Ben. Ten. Act, it is necessary that the relationship of landlord and tenant must continue down to the date of the sale in order that the holding or tenure may pass to the transferee, that position, in our opinion, is not in any way affected by Section 146-A. In our opinion, therefore, the decision of Blank and Biswas, JJ. in is perfectly sound, and the ground put forward by Mr. Jitendra Nath Guha would fail.
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - B K Mukherjea - Full Document
1