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

1889 Supreme(Cal) 20

W. COMER PETHERAM, WILSON, PIGOT, O KINEALY, MACPHERSON
Deb Narain Dutt – Appellant
Versus
Narendra Krishna – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Wilson, J. - Section 170 of the Bengal Tenancy Act VIII of 1885 enacts that "Sections 278--283 (both inclusive) of the CPC shall not apply to a tenure or holding attached in execution of a decree for arrears due thereon." This Act became law on the 1st November 1885. Among the sections of the Code thus excluded are those under which claims to property attached in execution are made. Before the Bengal Tenancy Act came into operation, a decree for rent was obtained under the Rent Act then in force (Bengal Act VIII of 1869), which Act embodied the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, After the Bengal Tenancy Act became law, the tenancy in respect of which the rent decreed had become due was attached in execution of the decree. The present applicant filed a claim to the property attached, but the Munsif, in whose Court the proceedings took place, rejected the claim as being forbidden by Section 170 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The question that we have to consider is, whether Section 170 of that Act applies to the present case, and the answer depends upon Section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1 of 1868, by which "the repeal of any Statute, Act, or Regulation shall not affect

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