Skip to content


Manager, Kasimbazar Raj Wards Estate Vs. Rakhal Das Tarafdar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1943Cal99
AppellantManager, Kasimbazar Raj Wards Estate
RespondentRakhal Das Tarafdar
Excerpt:
- .....attracted to decrees which do not carry any interest. the contention of the appellant is that the words 'such decree' mean any decree irrespective of the question whether it is carrying interest or not. we are unable to accept this contention. section 100 affects vested rights. a vested right can no doubt be touched by a statute but this must be done either by express words or by necessary intendment. the words 'if the interest due under such decree or order be paid in full every year during the said seven years' in our opinion, however, clearly indicate that the legislature in the last part of section 10c was not referring to all decrees but only to decrees which carry interest. apparently, the legislature thought that in eases of decrees carrying interest if interest be paid regularly.....
Judgment:

1. (4th February 1942) The only point for determination in this appeal is whether the words 'for seven years thereafter' in Section 10C, Court of Wards Act, 1879, would be attracted to decrees which do not carry any interest. The contention of the appellant is that the words 'such decree' mean any decree irrespective of the question whether it is carrying interest or not. We are unable to accept this contention. Section 100 affects vested rights. A vested right can no doubt be touched by a statute but this must be done either by express words or by necessary intendment. The words 'if the interest due under such decree or order be paid in full every year during the said seven years' in our opinion, however, clearly indicate that the Legislature in the last part of Section 10C was not referring to all decrees but only to decrees which carry interest. Apparently, the Legislature thought that in eases of decrees carrying interest if interest be paid regularly no injustice will be done to the decree-holder if the levy of the execution be postponed for seven years more. The learned Subordinate Judge has put this interpretation upon Section 10C of the Act. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Subordinate Judge. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs, hearing-fee, one gold mohur.

2. (6th March 1942) In view of the judgment passed in the appeal, no order is necessary on the application under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code.


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