Skip to content


Bhyrub Chunder Bundopadhya Vs. Soudamini Dabee - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1877)ILR2Cal142
AppellantBhyrub Chunder Bundopadhya
RespondentSoudamini Dabee
Excerpt:
sale in execution of decree - period from which title of purchaser dates--confirmation of sale--liability of purchaser for government revenue. - .....order to save the whole estate from being sold by the collector. the question is, whether, as the sale to soudamini was eventually confirmed, she is not now liable to refund to the plaintiff the sums so paid by him.3. the defendant denies her liability in respect of any government revenue which accrued due prior to the date of confirmation of her purchase.4. in our opinion the sale having been confirmed, and the purchaser having obtained a certificate, the interest of the judgment-debtor must be held, for the purposes of this suit, to have ceased from the date of the sale and to have thus become vested in the purchaser. that being so, we think that the purchaser, the defendant soudamini, must be deemed the person liable to pay the amount of government revenue in question, and that,.....
Judgment:

Richard Garth, C.J.

1. The question which we propose to decide in this case is whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant certain sums paid by the plaintiff for Government revenue due in respect of a share, now owned by the defendant, in a zemindari, the larger share of which belongs to the plaintiff.

2. The proceedings do not show very accurately what the precise position of the parties is: but the facts seem to be as follows: The plaintiff' owns as zemindar and putnidar (or partly as zemindar and partly as putnidar) a 15 annas 3 gandas 3 cowries share of an estate, Lot Nimdaba, registered as No. 75 in the Collectorate of Burdwan; and Krishnaprosonno Mozumdar and another were the zemindars of the remaining small share, 16 gandas 1 cowrie. The total revenue payable to the Collector in respect of the estate was Rs. 8,807, 4 annas 11 gandas. Of this, Rs. 8,356, 9 annas 11 gandas represented the plaintiff's share, and Rs. 450, 11 annas was the share of Krishnaprosonno Mozumdar, &c.; And the plaintiff states in the plaint that he was entrusted with the payment of the whole revenue as well what was due in respect of his own share of the zemindari and his own share of the putni, as what was due in respect of the share of Krishnaprosonno Mozumdar, &c.; The share of Krishnaprosonno Mozumdar, &c;, having been attached and sold in execution of the decree of a Civil Court, one-half of it was purchased by the defendant Soudamini. Certain instalments of Government revenue having fallen due between the date of the execution sale and the date on which Soudamini's purchase was confirmed by the order of Court, they were paid by the plaintiff, who, in truth, was obliged to pay them in order to save the whole estate from being sold by the Collector. The question is, whether, as the sale to Soudamini was eventually confirmed, she is not now liable to refund to the plaintiff the sums so paid by him.

3. The defendant denies her liability in respect of any Government revenue which accrued due prior to the date of confirmation of her purchase.

4. In our opinion the sale having been confirmed, and the purchaser having obtained a certificate, the interest of the judgment-debtor must be held, for the purposes of this suit, to have ceased from the date of the sale and to have thus become vested in the purchaser. That being so, we think that the purchaser, the defendant Soudamini, must be deemed the person liable to pay the amount of Government revenue in question, and that, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover from her the payments which he made on account of her share of the property amounting (after giving her credit for the Rs. 25 which she had paid) to Rs. 168-151/2 , with interest on that sum at the rate of 6 per cent, from the time or times when the payments were made.

5. The judgment of the lower Appellate Court will be altered accordingly, and the plaintiff, the appellant, will have the costs of this appeal.

Markby, J.

6. I concur in thinking that, under the circumstances of this case, the appellant had a right to recover from the respondent the amount claimed in respect of the two payments of Government revenue made by the appellant for the January and March quarters of 1872.


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