Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.33 seconds)
Midnapore Zamindary Co. Ltd. vs Haripada Roy And Ors. on 2 June, 1938 cites

Dwarkanath Chakravarti Chowdhury vs Atul Chandra Chakravarti Chowdhury And ... on 5 March, 1919

Similarly a decree obtained by a landlord against the tenants who had ceased to be tenants cannot be called a decree for rent: Dwarkanath Chakravarti v. Atul Chandra (1919) 6 AIR Cal 381. This point indeed presents no difficulty in the present case. The question is not what would happen at the execution stage but whether by operation of law the right of the landlord auction purchaser to the arrears of rent for the anterior period has been extinguished. The tenant was liable for those arrears. The landlord has now placed himself in the position of that tenant by purchasing his right, title, and interest. Then can the landlord still say that he can claim those arrears from the person whose right, title, and interest he has purchased?
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Tariniprosad Roy vs Narayan Kumari Debi on 5 December, 1889

The question is whether this view is correct. It is important to remember that Section 65, Ben. Ten. Act, gives to the landlord a special remedy by putting him in the position of a first mortgagee so to speak; but his other remedy against the tenant personally for the debt due to him remains, and he has the right to avail himself of either of these remedies: Trinprosad Roy v. Narayan Kumari Debi (1890) 17 Cal 301. That however was not the case of a landlord auction purchaser at a money sale. The right given by 8.
Calcutta High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Sailoja Prosad Chatterjee vs Gyani Das on 30 April, 1912

In Sailoja Prosad v. Gyani Das (1913) 18 CLJ 29 the land-lord had obtained against the tenant a rent decree in 1904 and a money decree in 1906. In execution of the later decree he attached the tenure and proclaimed at the time of sale that the tenure was subject to the judgment debt under the decree of 1904. The decree- holder having purchased at this sale, it was held that the judgment debt under the rent decree was extinguished.
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Maharaja Kesho Prosad Singh vs Musammat Paranjota Koer on 12 May, 1921

2. In the present suit under appeal the question has not arisen at an execution stage and there is not yet a decree, but there is a liability which is sought to be made into a decree. So the same principle appears to be applicable. For the appellant stress is laid on the fact that, unlike as in the reported case, the proclamation of sale which resulted in the plaintiff's auction-purchase did not contain any notice that there were rents in arrears for the anterior period. That case is referred to and explained in a judgment of the Patna High Court in Kesho Prosad v. Mt. Paranjota Koer (1921) 8 AIR Pat 184 wherein the importance of the notice in the sale proclamation is stressed. But does the absence of notice always mean that the sale is not subject to the charge?
Patna High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1