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

1899 Supreme(Cal) 199

FRANCIS W. MACLEAN, BANERJEE
Nagendra Nath Basu – Appellant
Versus
Satadal Basini Basu – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J. - This case in my opinion does not fall within Section 78 of Bengal Act VII of 1876.

2. The facts are these: The father of the present plaintiffs was the registered proprietor of the property in question. He died on the 19th September 1893, and his heirs sold the property on the 4th December in that year. This suit is for the recovery of the rents which accrued between April and the 4th December 1893. As regards the rent accruing between the 19th September 1893 when the father, the registered proprietor, died, and the 4th December 1893, when his heirs sold the property, it cannot be recovered, for the plaintiffs must be regarded as suing as proprietors, and they were not registered as such, and consequently as regards that part of the claim they are successfully met be Section 78 of Bengal Act VII of 1876. But as regards the rent accruing between April and the particular date fixed for payment, which I understand was some day in July, they are entitled in my judgment to maintain the action to recover that amount as representatives of their late father. They are not suing as proprietors; they are suing as his heirs, and anything they may rec

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