Skip to content


Debi Prosanna Ghose Vs. Indra NaraIn Pal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1941Cal27
AppellantDebi Prosanna Ghose
Respondentindra NaraIn Pal and ors.
Cases ReferredJoychandra Ray v. Satis Chandra Ray
Excerpt:
- .....who is the legatee of the deceased akshay kumar ghose. it appears that the administratrix of the estate, charusila dasi, instituted a suit against the respondents in 1934 and in due course her suit was dismissed and there was a decree for costs against charusila dasi in her capacity as administratrix of the estate. thereafter, on 25th november 1935 charusila made over the estate to debi prosanna ghose who is the adopted son of the testator. the courts below held that the decree-holders might execute their decree against debi prosanna ghose as the decree in question was passed against the estate of akshay kumar ghose. in several respects the case with which we are now dealing is similar to the case in joychandra ray v. satis chandra ray : air1930cal762 in which sir george rankin c.j.,.....
Judgment:

Edgley, J.

1. The appellant in this case is a man named Debi Prosanna Ghose who is the legatee of the deceased Akshay Kumar Ghose. It appears that the administratrix of the estate, Charusila Dasi, instituted a suit against the respondents in 1934 and in due course her suit was dismissed and there was a decree for costs against Charusila Dasi in her capacity as administratrix of the estate. Thereafter, on 25th November 1935 Charusila made over the estate to Debi Prosanna Ghose who is the adopted son of the testator. The Courts below held that the decree-holders might execute their decree against Debi Prosanna Ghose as the decree in question was passed against the estate of Akshay Kumar Ghose. In several respects the case with which we are now dealing is similar to the case in Joychandra Ray v. Satis Chandra Ray : AIR1930Cal762 in which Sir George Rankin C.J., pointed out that the right of a creditor to follow the assets in the hands of a legatee is a right which has to be exercised by a suit and cannot be exercised merely by levying execution against the assets in the hands of the legatee. Having regard to the principles laid down in the above cited case, this appeal must be allowed and it will be for the decree-holders, if so advised, to institute a suit against the appellant for the recovery of the costs due to them. The order of the learned District Judge of Birbhum is accordingly set aside and this appeal is allowed. I make no order with regard to costs.


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