Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (1.52 seconds)
Nrisingha Prosad Bose And Ors. vs Nil Ratan Singha Roy And Ors. on 6 December, 1949 cites

Maharaj Bahadur Singh vs Nari Mollani And Anr. on 27 February, 1936

15. The doctrine of lis pendens is embodied in Section 52, T. P. Act. In order that the doctrine may apply the suit must be one in which a right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question. This is of the essence of the rule. A suit for arrears of rent or a tenure or holding is primarily a suit for recovery of money and although a decree for arrears of rents creates a first charge it cannot be said that this renders the suit itself as one in which a right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question. This view is supported by the decision in the case of Jainal Abedin v. Hyder Ali Khan, and Maharaj Bahadur Singh v. Nari Mollani, .
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Bhagaban Chandra Kundu vs Tarak Chandra Basak And Ors. on 5 July, 1926

20. Mr. Mukherji lastly contends that the decree for arrears of rent has the effect of a charge decree and if a subsequent transferee of the interest of some of the tenants is not joined in the execution proceedings, the effect of the sale is that the sale vests the tenancy in the purchaser subject to redemption by the prior transferor who was not made a party to the execution proceedings, that the only remedy of the excluded person is to redeem but such an excluded person cannot maintain ejectment against the purchaser. It is, therefore, urged that the plaintiffs can only redeem the rent decree but cannot recover possession in the facts of the present case. Reliance is placed on the decisions in the cases of Bhagaban Chandra v. Tarak Chandra, and Bhadai Sheikh v. Barada Kanta, . The contention proceeds on an analogy between a mortgage suit and a suit for arrears of rent. The analogy, however, is only true to this. extent that on the passing of a decree in either case a decree for charge enures in favour of the landlord. The analogy does not go further than this. This would appear from the fact that in a mortgage suit all persons interested in the equity of redemption or in the mortgage security have to be made parties in view of the provisions contained in Order 34, Rule 1, Civil P. C. The position is entirely different in a suit for arrears of rent. The landlord is entitled to institute his suit for arrears of rent only against his recorded tenants. A mortgagee of the tenancy or an incumbrancer need not be impleaded; the latter cannot bring a suit for redemption or otherwise exercise his right of redemption after the rent sale, the purchaser at the latter sale having the right to annul the mortgage by taking proceedings as provided for in Section 167, Bengal Tenancy Act. Again, if the landlord fails to take the procedure as provided for in Section 167, Bengal Tenancy Act, the mortgage or the incumbrance is binding on the tenancy in the hands of the purchaser at the rent sale. Thus the analogy of a first mortgage and of a subsequent incumbrance cannot avail the purchaser at the rant sale.
Calcutta High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Jaynal Abedin And Ors. vs Hyder Ali Khan Pani on 17 August, 1927

15. The doctrine of lis pendens is embodied in Section 52, T. P. Act. In order that the doctrine may apply the suit must be one in which a right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question. This is of the essence of the rule. A suit for arrears of rent or a tenure or holding is primarily a suit for recovery of money and although a decree for arrears of rents creates a first charge it cannot be said that this renders the suit itself as one in which a right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question. This view is supported by the decision in the case of Jainal Abedin v. Hyder Ali Khan, and Maharaj Bahadur Singh v. Nari Mollani, .
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Bhodai Sheikh vs Barada Kanta Dutta on 20 July, 1927

20. Mr. Mukherji lastly contends that the decree for arrears of rent has the effect of a charge decree and if a subsequent transferee of the interest of some of the tenants is not joined in the execution proceedings, the effect of the sale is that the sale vests the tenancy in the purchaser subject to redemption by the prior transferor who was not made a party to the execution proceedings, that the only remedy of the excluded person is to redeem but such an excluded person cannot maintain ejectment against the purchaser. It is, therefore, urged that the plaintiffs can only redeem the rent decree but cannot recover possession in the facts of the present case. Reliance is placed on the decisions in the cases of Bhagaban Chandra v. Tarak Chandra, and Bhadai Sheikh v. Barada Kanta, . The contention proceeds on an analogy between a mortgage suit and a suit for arrears of rent. The analogy, however, is only true to this. extent that on the passing of a decree in either case a decree for charge enures in favour of the landlord. The analogy does not go further than this. This would appear from the fact that in a mortgage suit all persons interested in the equity of redemption or in the mortgage security have to be made parties in view of the provisions contained in Order 34, Rule 1, Civil P. C. The position is entirely different in a suit for arrears of rent. The landlord is entitled to institute his suit for arrears of rent only against his recorded tenants. A mortgagee of the tenancy or an incumbrancer need not be impleaded; the latter cannot bring a suit for redemption or otherwise exercise his right of redemption after the rent sale, the purchaser at the latter sale having the right to annul the mortgage by taking proceedings as provided for in Section 167, Bengal Tenancy Act. Again, if the landlord fails to take the procedure as provided for in Section 167, Bengal Tenancy Act, the mortgage or the incumbrance is binding on the tenancy in the hands of the purchaser at the rent sale. Thus the analogy of a first mortgage and of a subsequent incumbrance cannot avail the purchaser at the rant sale.
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1