Skip to content


Lal Mohun Mukerjee and Grish Chunder Mukerjee Vs. Jogendra Chunder Roy and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1887)ILR14Cal636
AppellantLal Mohun Mukerjee and Grish Chunder Mukerjee;grish Chunder Mukerjee
RespondentJogendra Chunder Roy and ors.;ramkali Dutt and ors.
Excerpt:
bengal tenancy act, section 174 - act creating new rights, effect of--application for execution. - .....the execution of the decree having been applied for before the aforesaid date. section 174 of the bengal tenancy act confers upon the judgment-debtors a new right which they did not possess under the old act. therefore the presumption is (in the absence of express legislation or direct implication to the contrary) that its operation is not intended to be retrospective. its provisions cannot, therefore, be applied to proceedings commenced before the act came into operation. the rule will be made absolute with costs.prinsep, j.2. as one of the judges who referred this case, i think it necessary to state that it was referred as cognate to another case already referred, in which the point raised was one of some difficulty and importance, so as to secure uniformity of practice. it is much to.....
Judgment:

Mitter, J.

1. We are of opinion that an application under Section 174 of the Bengal Tenancy Act cannot be entertained in respect of sales held in execution of decrees made before the date when that Act came into operation, the execution of the decree having been applied for before the aforesaid date. Section 174 of the Bengal Tenancy Act confers upon the judgment-debtors a new right which they did not possess under the old Act. Therefore the presumption is (in the absence of express legislation or direct implication to the contrary) that its operation is not intended to be retrospective. Its provisions cannot, therefore, be applied to proceedings commenced before the Act came into operation. The rule will be made absolute with costs.

Prinsep, J.

2. As one of the Judges who referred this case, I think it necessary to state that it was referred as cognate to another case already referred, in which the point raised was one of some difficulty and importance, so as to secure uniformity of practice. It is much to be regretted that the parties have since compromised that case and thus prevented the settlement of this matter.


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