Kulada Prasad Chaudhury vs Ramanand Patnaik

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1921 Supreme(Cal) 294

Kulada Prasad Chaudhury – Appellant
Versus
Ramanand Patnaik – Respondent

JUDGMENT

Mookerjee, J. - This is an appeal by the Defendant in a mortgage suit. The preliminary decree was made on the 15th January 1920, and the appeal now before us was lodged in this Court on the 21st April 1920. It appears that though in the interval, the final decree had been made on the 16th March 1920, the appeal is directed only against the preliminary decree and not against the final decree In these circumstances, an objection has been taken by the Respondent that the appeal is incompetent, on the authority of the decision in Mackenzie v. Nursingh Sahai I. L. R. 36 Cal. 762 (1909). This preliminary objection is manifestly well-founded on principle for if we were now to reverse the preliminary decree at the instance of the Appellant, the final decree would still remain unaffected, as no attempt has been made to challenge the propriety of that decree. But our attention has been drawn by the Appellant to the case of Khirodamoyee Dasi v. Adhar Chandra Ghose 18 C. L. J. 821 (1912), which is clearly distinguishable. There the final decree was made after the appeal had been preferred against the preliminary decree. In these circumstances, it was ruled that the final decree must be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document