Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.22 seconds)Section 100 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 132 in Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Fotick Chunder Dey Sircar vs E.G. Foley And Ors. on 23 November, 1887
In Fotick Chunder Dey Sircar v. Foley, (1887) I.L.R. 15 Cal. 492. (P.C.) there was no question of enforcing any prior charge. The landlord got a money decree for rent and he attached other properties of the Judgment-debtor, that is, the properties other than the holding on which the rent had become due. The only question there was whether though he obtained a money decree merely he ought to be deemed as having also obtained a mortgage-decree for the sale of the holding and whether he should first bring to sale the holding should not be allowed to proceed against the other properties of his tenant in execution of the mere money decree for rent. The Court held that Section 68 of Act IV of 1882 had no application and the landlord could execute his money decree by attaching and bringing to sale other properties. Having decided the direct point involved, the learned Judges proceeded thus : " This we think is a sufficient and complete answer to Dr. Banerjee's argument. But we are not prepared to admit that, the " charge " referred to in Section 65 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885, is such a charge as is defined by Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act," Where the difference lies, the learned Judges do not point out. On this vague obiter dictum I do not think it is possible to hold that Order 34 Rule 14 is not applicable where the charge for rent is sought to be enforced.
Section 5 in Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Madras Estates Land Act, 1908
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 125 in Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 65 in Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Royzuddi Sheik vs Kali Nath Mookerjee on 27 April, 1906
In the case in Royzuddi Sheik v. Kali Nath Mookerjee (1906) I.L.R. 33 Cal. 985 the question was whether when a regular mortgage deed or a regular bond creating a charge is taken for the arrears of rent, the charge under the Bengal Tenancy Act still existed. Mookerjee, J., says :--" The present suit is in no sense a suit to enforce the original rent charge. It is in substance, as it is in form, a suit to enforce the rights of the plaintiff under the instalment bond by which in lieu of the original liability, a new liability was substituted. Besides if the plaintiff had sued to enforce the rent charge, his claim would be barred by limitation." That ground was sufficient for the disposal of the case and it was not necessary to consider at all the nature of the charge referred to in Section 65 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.