Skip to content


Jagat Chandra Sarma Chowdhury Vs. Radha Nath Chakravarti and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in28Ind.Cas.576
AppellantJagat Chandra Sarma Chowdhury
RespondentRadha Nath Chakravarti and ors.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act xiv of 1882), section 283 - declaratory suit--partial interest in property, parting with--valuable consideration--vendor's right to continue in occupation--sale. - .....who contends that the title has vested in him. the court of first instance decreed the suit. upon appeal, the subordinate judge dismissed it. he held that the purchaser had aquired title bona fide for valuable consideration. at the same time he found that the purchaser had paid less than the ordinary market value of the land, he explained this fact on the around that the vendor had retained a right to continue in occupation of the land. on appeal to this court the decree of the subordinate judge has been confirmed by mr. justice coxe.2. on the present appeal, it has been argued that upon the facts found by the subordinate judge it is dear that the vendor did not part with his entire interest in the property and that as it has been found that lie has retained a right to continue in.....
Judgment:

1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of Mr. Justice Coxe in a suit, under Section 283 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882. The plaintiff asks for a declaration that the property in suit belongs to his judgment-debtor and that he is entitled to bring it to sale in execution of this decree. The claim is resisted by a purchaser from the judgment-debtor who contends that the title has vested in him. The Court of first instance decreed the suit. Upon appeal, the Subordinate Judge dismissed it. He held that the purchaser had aquired title bona fide for valuable consideration. At the same time he found that the purchaser had paid less than the ordinary market value of the land, he explained this fact on the around that the vendor had retained a right to continue in occupation of the land. On appeal to this Court the decree of the Subordinate Judge has been confirmed by Mr. Justice Coxe.

2. On the present appeal, it has been argued that upon the facts found by the Subordinate Judge it is dear that the vendor did not part with his entire interest in the property and that as it has been found that lie has retained a right to continue in occupation, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree declaring that that interest is liable to be said in execution of his decree, in our opinion, there is no answer to this contention.

3. The result, therefore, is that this appeal must be allowed, the decree of Mr. Justice Coxe as also that of the Subordinate Judge discharged and a declaration made in favour of the plaintiff to the effect that he is entitled in execution of his decree to bring to said the right, title and interest of the judgment-debtor in the disputed property, namely, the right to remain in occupation thereof.

4. Each party will pay his own costs throughout.

5. This judgment, it is conceded, will govern the other appeal, in which a similar decree will be passed.


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