Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)
Nitayi Behari Saha Paramanick And Ors. vs Hari Govinda Saha And Ors. on 17 March, 1899 cites

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

40. As for the cases of Kristo Chunder Ghose v. Raj Kristo Bandyopadhya (1885) I.L.R., 12 Cal., 24; Beni Madhub Roy v. Jaod Ali Sircar (1890) I.L.R., 17 Cal, 390, and Radha Pershad Singh v. Ram Khelawan Singh (1895) I.L.R., 23 Gal., 302, relied upon in support of the appeal, I think they are quite distinguishable from the present case as Mr. Justice Hill has shown.
Calcutta High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Nanomi Babuasin And Ors. vs Modhun Mohun And Ors. on 1 December, 1885

Indeed, it was laid down by the Privy Council in Nanomi Babuasin v. Modhun Mohun (1885) I.L.R., 13 Cal., 21: L.R., 13 I.A., 1, that a purchaser at a sale in execution, if he has bought the entirety, may defend his title on any ground which would have justified the sale. That case was no doubt in its facts somewhat different from the present, but the principle is, I think, equally applicable here.
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 98 - Full Document

Nobin Chandra Roy vs Magantara Dassya And Anr. on 26 June, 1884

Thus in Nobin Chandra Roy v. Magantara Dassya (1884) I.L.R., 10 Cal., 924, for example, Garth, C.J., said: "It is clear that if two out of three partners are sued for a debt due from the partnership and a decree is obtained against those two and execution issues against the partnership property, if the third partner should apply successfully in the execution proceedings to have his share in the property released, the plaintiff's only remedy would be a regular suit, not for the purpose of making the third partner personally liable for the debts, but for the purpose of making the share of the third partner available to satisfy the decree." This was said not with advertence to any doctrine peculiar to Hindu law, but, as I understand it, generally; and if a decree-holder may in such a case show that the property of the third partner is available for the satisfaction of the decree then, on the principle to which I have referred in an earlier part of my judgment, when the sale has actually taken place, the purchaser at an execution sale, if he be sued by the third partner, may defend his title on similar grounds.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Jagan Nath Gorai And Ors. vs Watson And Company on 22 January, 1892

But that does not confine the property to be sold to the interest of the defendant No. 1 alone. By right, title and interest of the judgment-debtor it means the right, title and interest of all the co-sharers of the taluk, i.e., plaintiffs and defendant No. 1, the former being as much judgment-debtors of the decree as the latter who had been sued as representing all the holders of the shikmi taluk." I cannot, however, agree to the interpretation put by the Subordinate Judge on the terms of the proclamation of sale, there being nothing, as already said, on the record, as far as I can see, to show why the defendant No. I should or could represent the plaintiffs in the rent suit, or that he did do so, and therefore I can see no reason why the plaintff's property should be held to have passed at the sale of the right, title and interest of the judgment-debtor, defendant No. 1, in the taluk--a sale held in execution of a decree obtained in a suit in which they were not parties. This sale was certainly not one under the Bengal Tenancy Act, and the purchaser, defendant No. 2, cannot have purchased the whole tenure, nor can the plaintiffs' right be affected by it. In support of this view, I would cite the cases of Kristo Chunder Ghose v. Raj Kristo Bandyopadhya (1885) I.L.R., 12 Cal., 24; Beni Madhub Boy v. Jaod Ram Sircar (1890) I.L.R., 17 Cal., 390, and Jagan Nath Goral v. Watson & Co. (1892) I.L.R., 19 Cal., 341.
Calcutta High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1