Skip to content


Hafizur Rahman Howladar Vs. Md. Amjad Ali Taluqdar of Tarikata - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1942Cal280
AppellantHafizur Rahman Howladar
RespondentMd. Amjad Ali Taluqdar of Tarikata
Excerpt:
- .....section 26f, ben. ten. act. it depends upon the meaning to be attached to the words 'consideration money or value of the share transferred' in sub-section (2).2. it appears that there is an incumbrance on the property. under sub-section (7), the petitioner will acquire the property subject to incumbrances. the opposite party is attempting to compel the petitioner to reimburse him for an incumbrance which he has failed to discharge. it is common ground that the petitioner must deposit the consideration money as stated in the notice. the question therefore, is what was the consideration money stated in the notice which was served upon the petitioner. it appears from the kobala that the parties valued the property at rs. 1180 free from incumbrances. the existence of an incumbrance was.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Henderson, J.

1. The question raised in this rule is whether the petitioner is to deposit Rs. 430 or Rs. 1180 before he is entitled to pre-empt under Section 26F, Ben. Ten. Act. It depends upon the meaning to be attached to the words 'consideration money or value of the share transferred' in Sub-section (2).

2. It appears that there is an incumbrance on the property. Under Sub-section (7), the petitioner will acquire the property subject to incumbrances. The opposite party is attempting to compel the petitioner to reimburse him for an incumbrance which he has failed to discharge. It is common ground that the petitioner must deposit the consideration money as stated in the notice. The question therefore, is what was the consideration money stated in the notice which was served upon the petitioner. It appears from the kobala that the parties valued the property at Rs. 1180 free from incumbrances. The existence of an incumbrance was mentioned but no details were given with regard to it. Then from the actual notice, it transpires that Rs. 430 was paid in cash and Rs. 750 was unpaid on the ground that it is due on the incumbrance. Now if the meaning of the notice was that Rs. 1180 was the consideration money, then there was no point whatever in giving all these details. The interpretation which the opposite party seeks to put upon notice implies the absurdity that the value of the equity of redemption is the same as the value of the property free from incumbrance. No injustice will be done to the opposite party. If he has paid off any incumbrance, he is entitled to make a claim under Sub-section (3).

3. The rule is accordingly made absolute. The order of the Courts below is set aside. The Munsif is directed to make an order in favour of the petitioner in accordance with law. The opposite party will pay the costs of the petitioner in all Courts. The hearing fee is assessed at one gold mohur.


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