Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (1.18 seconds)
Kailash Chandra Tarafdar vs Gopal Chandra Poddar on 23 February, 1926 cites

Musammat Bhagwati vs Banwari Lal And Ors. on 14 December, 1908

75. The divergence of views on this question is not only confined to this Court but there is a singular concurrence in that divergence amongst the various High Courts in India. The question really is a question of procedure and does not affect substantive rights. Strong and cogent arguments may be adduced on either side of the question. The case of Bhagwati v. Banwavi Lal 1 Ind. Cas. 416 : 31 A. 82 : 5 M.L.T. 185 : 6 A.L.J. 71. is an illustration of this view. Reading the elaborate and learned judgments of Sir J. Stanley and of Mr. Justice Banerji maintaining the different views of the question, there are cogent reasons in support of the conclusions of both these learned Judges. But the question being a question of procedure, I think we should not lightly disturb the view taken by this Court and followed for a long time unless such a view is inconsistent either with the language of the Code or of any authoritative judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
Allahabad High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 37 - Full Document

Madhusudan Das And Anr. vs Gobinda Pria Chowdhurani on 12 July, 1899

77. It would be an unprofitable task to discuss all the cases on the point, shall refer to two typical cases on each side so far as our Court is concerned. The view I take is supported by the case of Earn Narain Sahoo v. Bandi Pershad 31 C. 737, and the case of Madhusudan Das v. Gobinda Pria Ghowdau-rani 27 C. 34 : 4 C.W.N. 417 : 14 Ind. Dec, (n. s.) 23. I agree with the reasons given by the learned Judges in those cases.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Ram Narain Sahoo vs Bandi Pershad on 22 April, 1904

77. It would be an unprofitable task to discuss all the cases on the point, shall refer to two typical cases on each side so far as our Court is concerned. The view I take is supported by the case of Earn Narain Sahoo v. Bandi Pershad 31 C. 737, and the case of Madhusudan Das v. Gobinda Pria Ghowdau-rani 27 C. 34 : 4 C.W.N. 417 : 14 Ind. Dec, (n. s.) 23. I agree with the reasons given by the learned Judges in those cases.
Calcutta High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Sariatoolla Molla vs Raj Kumar Roy And Anr. on 3 April, 1900

23.; Sariatoola Moola v. Raj Kumar Roy (17). But even if it were held that the sale was complete without delivery of possession it would not avail the appellant, for in order to bring an application under Rule 95 within the ambit of Section 47, it is not essential that delivery of possession should form an integral part of the sale, it is enough that the question arising on such an application should relate to " the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree." That such questions do relate to the execution of the decree appears to me to be free from doubt for the two following, among other, sufficient reasons: (1) because the benefit which a decree-holder who is also the purchaser at the execution sale will derive from executing the decree largely depends upon the nature and extent of the possession which he can obtain of the property that he has purchased. Until he has been given possession of the property that he has purchased at the execution sale he has not fully secured the fruits of the decree, and, therefore, "a proceeding in execution cannot be said to be completed (at least so far as a decree-holder is concerned) in a case of sale until he has obtained the proceeds and benefit of the sale held in execution of his decree, and the execution of his decree cannot be said to be satisfied until in the one case he has received the purchase-money paid into Court, and in the other until he has been put into possession, of the property of the judgment-debtor which (2) he has purchased," per.
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 12 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next