Skip to content


Mohini Lal Pakrasi and ors. Vs. Nogenda Nath Pakrasi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in53Ind.Cas.672
AppellantMohini Lal Pakrasi and ors.
RespondentNogenda Nath Pakrasi and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....that on an application made on the 3rd september 1907 one amulya chandra banerjee was appointed common manager under the provisions of section 95 of the bengal tenancy act of two estates, namely, estate dihi adgola bearing no. 76 or 79 of the bogra collectorate and dihi suratoil or a 13-annas 15 gandas 2-karas share therein spoken of as a subam and apparently representing a separate estate created by partition. amulya chandra banerjee died sometime in the month of april 1916 and thereupon, after directing the issue of and endeavouring to serve notices upon all the proprietors of these estates, the district judge proceeded to appoint a successor of the said amulya chandra banerjee. subsequently on the 20th september 1916 the district judge did appoint one nogendra chandra ganguli to be.....
Judgment:

Teunon, J.

1. In this case it appears that on an application made on the 3rd September 1907 one Amulya Chandra Banerjee was appointed common manager under the provisions of Section 95 of the Bengal Tenancy Act of two estates, namely, Estate Dihi Adgola bearing No. 76 or 79 of the Bogra Collectorate and Dihi Suratoil or a 13-annas 15 gandas 2-karas share therein spoken of as a Subam and apparently representing a separate estate created by partition. Amulya Chandra Banerjee died sometime in the month of April 1916 and thereupon, after directing the issue of and endeavouring to serve notices upon all the proprietors of these estates, the District Judge proceeded to appoint a successor of the said Amulya Chandra Banerjee. Subsequently on the 20th September 1916 the District Judge did appoint one Nogendra Chandra Ganguli to be the common manager on the conditions and in the terms and with the powers under which Amulya Chandra Banerjee had held the office. Meanwhile it appears that of the Dihi Suratoil of which Amulya Chandra Banerjee had been appointed common manager, a certain number of shares had been excluded from the common management. It is, therefore, urged here that,the appointment of Nogendra Chandra Ganguli, being an appointment to a share of an estate and not to the whole estate, is not in accordance with law. Another objection urged, which is common to both these estates, is that notices have' not in fact been served upon all the co-sharer proprietors. The parties who appear here, however, did receive notice and did in fact appear before the District Judge. If it be the case that any of the other or sharer proprietors did not receive notice, they have made no complaint either before the District Judge or here, and we need not further consider this objection. The objection, however, taken in the case of Dihi Suratoil appears to be well-founded. It has been laid down in a number of cases in this Court that the appointment of a common manager must be to the entire estate and not to a portion thereof.

2. In so far, therefore, as the appointment of Nogendra Chandra Ganguli to be the common manager in respect of Dihi Suratoil or a portion thereof is concerned, we direct that the said appointment be set aside and that the learned District Judge do in respect of that estate commence proceedings anew. In so far as he has been appointed common manager to the Dihi Adgola No. 76 or 79 of the Bogra Collectorate, the appointment will not be interfered with.

3. This Bale is accordingly made absolute to the extent indicated above. We make no order as to costs.


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