Skip to content


Jogendra Lal Ghosh Vs. Manik Lal Ghosh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1945Cal401
AppellantJogendra Lal Ghosh
RespondentManik Lal Ghosh and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....no reason why a person not so entitled should be allowed to join. there is, however, an express provision allowing a transferee to do so. the omission of the transferor is, therefore, significant. there would be an inherent absurdity in allowing a vendor to pre-empt and i can find nothing in the section to suggest that such was the intention of the legislature. the rule is discharged. i make no order as to costs.
Judgment:
ORDER

Henderson, J.

1. This rule has been obtained in connexion with an application for pre-emption under Section 26F, Ben. Ten. Act. The petitioner is the vendor. He only transferred a portion of his interest and the question for determination is whether he is entitled to join in the application under Sub-section (i) made by another cosharer. It is obvious that the vendor could not make an original application of his own. Prima facie there is no reason why a person not so entitled should be allowed to join. There is, however, an express provision allowing a transferee to do so. The omission of the transferor is, therefore, significant. There would be an inherent absurdity in allowing a vendor to pre-empt and I can find nothing in the section to suggest that such was the intention of the Legislature. The rule is discharged. I make no order as to costs.


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