Skip to content


Karamali Molla Vs. TamijuddIn Molla and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in58Ind.Cas.816
AppellantKaramali Molla
RespondentTamijuddIn Molla and ors.
Excerpt:
bengal tenancy act (viii of 1885), section 174 - order setting aside sale--appeal, second, whether competent--civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 115--application to set aside sale--deposit of compensation--mistake of court in calculating amount--sale set aside--revision. - .....case, there is no second appeal to this court, must prevail.2. we have been asked to treat the appeal as an application under section 115, civil procedure code, we do not think that this is a case in v. this court should exercise its powers of revision, assuming that the orders of the lower court are erroneous.3. the application to set aside the sale was made on deposit of the amount within 30 days' from the data of the sale. the amount deposited fell short by a few rupees of the amount of compensation due to the purchaser. this has, been found by both courts to have been due to a mistake on the part of the sheristadar who gave information to the petitioner, apparently according to the practice prevailing in that court,, and also due to his mistake in checking the, chalan. as soon as.....
Judgment:

1. We think that the objection raised on behalf of the respondent that, in this case, there is no second appeal to this Court, must prevail.

2. We have been asked to treat the appeal as an application under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, We do not think that this is a case in v. this Court should exercise its powers of revision, assuming that the orders of the lower Court are erroneous.

3. The application to set aside the sale was made on deposit of the amount within 30 days' from the data of the sale. The amount deposited fell short by a few rupees of the amount of compensation due to the purchaser. This has, been found by both Courts to have been due to a mistake on the part of the Sheristadar who gave information to the petitioner, apparently according to the practice prevailing in that Court,, and also due to his mistake in checking the, Chalan. As soon as the mistake was found out, the deficit amount was deposited by the applicant. The property is said to be worth Rs. 4,000 and was purchased for Rs. 213.

4. The appeal must be dismissed. No order as to costs.


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