SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1915 Supreme(Cal) 202

WALMSLEY, HOLMWOOD
Hiranand Ojha – Appellant
Versus
Satish Chandra Roy – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Holmwood, J. - We have considered every section of the Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act VI of 1876, and the rules made thereunder, and we are clearly of opirtion that this suit is not maintainable. The Manager is the principal necessary party and there is no allegation that he, in making the order he did in pursuance of the Act was not acting bona fide. Section 22, therefore, will alone bar the suit. But it is clear from the provisions of Section 3 and Section 12 and other sections that during the time that the estate is held by the Revenue Authorities under the Act the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to interfere on a suit brought by the creditors. The creditors have their remedy against any order of the Manager before the Deputy Commissioner and before the Commissioner. As a matter of fact in this case they went to the Deputy Commissioner and got the only grievance, which they had urged, removed. The Deputy Commissioner allowed them to retain possession of the portion of the property which they had purchased under a decree for Rs. 1,100.

2. The other question, which was raised before the Commissioner and which is practically the question before us was that the Manager h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top