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

1945 Supreme(Cal) 159

HENDERSON
Saraj Bashini Debi – Appellant
Versus
Parindra Nath Banerjee – Respondent


ORDER

Henderson, J. - This is a rule calling upon opposite party 1 auction-purchaser, to show cause why he should not pay into Court the rent due for the years 1346 to 1349 B.S. under the provisions of Section 168A, Ben. Ten. Act. The decree in execution of which he purchased the holding was for rent due for the years 1344 and 1345. The execution case was held up for a long time on account of two applications to a Debt Settlement Board. The holding was eventually purchased on 5th April 1943. The sale could not be actually confirmed until 20th May 1944. By this time the rent for the years 1346 to 1350 had accrued. The auction-purchaser has in accordance with the Munsif's order deposited the rent for the year 1350 only. The petitioner then obtained this rule. During the pendency of the present execution case the petitioner instituted a suit to recover rent due for the years 1346 to 1349, as part of the claim was about to become barred by limitation. The learned Munsif held that, as the petitioner had obtained a decree for this rent, the auction-purchaser was under no obligation to make any deposit. The question is certainly not free from difficulty. The reason given by the learned Mun

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