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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.