Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.16 seconds)

Kristo Chunder Ghose And Ors. vs Raj Kristo Bandyopadhya And Ors. on 8 July, 1885

4. The learned Judge in the Lower Court, in deciding the case has relied on the fact that the tenure was transferable, and its transfer by a registered kobala was sufficient to discharge the liability of the defendants, who were tenants in occupation. The Munsifl found that the transfer effected by the defendants to Kumudini was colourable, and no consideration passed and Kumudini was never in possession. On these facts the Munsiff held, and we think correctly, that nothing passed by the sale and the original tenants were liable in the same way as they had been before the execution of the kobala. The learned Judge has in holding a contrary view relied on the cases of Kristo Bulluv Ghose v. Kristo Lal Singh (1889) I.L.R. 16 Calc.
Calcutta High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Chintamoni Dutt vs Rash Behari Mondul on 10 July, 1891

642 and Chintamoni Dutt v. Bash Behari Mondul (1891) I.L.R. 19 Calc. 17. These cases are clearly distinguishable. They do not refer to cases in which the transfers were colourable and benami. These cases show that a valid transfer under Section 12 of the Bengal Tenancy Act operates to discharge the transferor from liability to pay rent and the liability to pay rent passes to the transferee. But in order to give effect to a transfer, the transfer should be a valid one and not colourable and benami.
Calcutta High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1