Skip to content


Harish Chandra Bose Vs. Ram Gobinda Nandy and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in35Ind.Cas.584
AppellantHarish Chandra Bose
RespondentRam Gobinda Nandy and ors.
Excerpt:
bengal tenancy act (viii b.c. of 1885), section 171 - unregistered co-sharer in occupancy holding, if entitled to benefit of section 171. - john wooroffe, j.1. i agree with mr. justice newbould in holding that a person cannot obtain the benefit of section 171 of the bengal tenancy act on the ground of being an unregistered co-sharer in the occupancy holding against the registered holder of which the decree for rent was obtained. in making his application for depositing the money, the appellant described himself as the malih in the raiyati holding. mr. justice newbould says that it is not quite clear whether he is a mortgagee or not. the position of the appellant, however, is this, that he is not the mortgagee or an assignee of the mortgagee, but he is a purchaser of the mortgage-decree, that is to say, he purchased the right to execute the decree against the mortgagor. apart from this mr. justice newbould has pointed out that.....
Judgment:

John Wooroffe, J.

1. I agree with Mr. Justice Newbould in holding that a person cannot obtain the benefit of Section 171 of the Bengal Tenancy Act on the ground of being an unregistered co-sharer in the occupancy holding against the registered holder of which the decree for rent was obtained. In making his application for depositing the money, the appellant described himself as the malih in the raiyati holding. Mr. Justice Newbould says that it is not quite clear whether he is a mortgagee or not. The position of the appellant, however, is this, that he is not the mortgagee or an assignee of the mortgagee, but he is a purchaser of the mortgage-decree, that is to say, he purchased the right to execute the decree against the mortgagor. Apart from this Mr. Justice Newbould has pointed out that the plaintiff did not claim in his plaint to hold the land as mortgagee and the deposit was not made under that title but under that of malih.

2. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs.

Choudhuri, J.

3. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //