Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.20 seconds)
Harlal Chaubey And Ors. vs Rameshwar Narayan Singh on 22 May, 1928 cites

Rup Nath Mandal vs Jagannath Mandal on 22 November, 1927

5. Here the Court is prohibited from passing an order for the sale of the right of a raiyat in his holding and also from selling the same in execution of such an order, which may have been passed per incuriam or otherwise: see Rup Nuth Mandal v. Jagannath Mandal 107 Ind. Cas. 145 : A.I.R. 1928 Pat. 227 : 7 Pat. 178 : 9 P.L.T. 228. To this prohibition there is an exception in respect of a holding--it may be sold in execution of a decree for an arrear of rent which has accrued in respect of itself. The exception is quite definite: it does not authorize the sale of anything except the holding or on any ground except in execution of a decree for its own arrears of rent. The terms of the proviso in fact exclude any idea of sale of a portion of the holding. Even a joint landlord is not authorized, as Expl. 1 shows, to sell the whole holding in execution of a decree obtained by him for the share of rent of the holding due to him still less to sell a portion of the holding. Then Section 208(1) sets out the manner in which the proviso to Section 47 may be taken advantage of. It enacts (so far as material);
Patna High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1   2 Next