Skip to content


Surendra Narayan Singh Vs. Mussammat Lachmi Koer and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in29Ind.Cas.840
AppellantSurendra Narayan Singh
RespondentMussammat Lachmi Koer and anr.;bhagalu Singh and anr.
Cases ReferredIn Ranjit Kumar Ghosh v. Jogendra Nath Roy
Excerpt:
bengal tenancy act (viii of 1885), section 174 - deposit to be made by judgment--debtor himself--transferee, whether can make a valid deposit. - .....that the opposite party was not the judgment-debtor within the meaning of section 174 of the bengal tenancy act.3. it appears that the petitioner obtained a decree against an occupancy ryot for arrears of rent and in execution of that decree, the holding was sold on the 8th september 1914 and was purchased by the petitioner. on the 22nd october 1914 a deposit of the decretal amount was made by the wife of the transferee of the tenant in question and on that day in consequence of the deposit thus made, the sale was set aside, by the munsif of katihar in the following terms:the judgment-debtor has deposited the entire decretal amount and compensation within time. let the sale be set aside and the case dismissed after full satisfaction of claim.4. the petitioner obtained the present.....
Judgment:

1. Rule No. 58 of 1915.

2. This Rule was issued on the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Munsif, dated the 22nd October 1914, should not be set aside on the ground that the opposite party was not the judgment-debtor within the meaning of Section 174 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.

3. It appears that the petitioner obtained a decree against an occupancy ryot for arrears of rent and in execution of that decree, the holding was sold on the 8th September 1914 and was purchased by the petitioner. On the 22nd October 1914 a deposit of the decretal amount was made by the wife of the transferee of the tenant in question and on that day in consequence of the deposit thus made, the sale was set aside, by the Munsif of Katihar in the following terms:

The judgment-debtor has deposited the entire decretal amount and compensation within time. Let the sale be set aside and the case dismissed after full satisfaction of claim.

4. The petitioner obtained the present Rule on the grouud that Section 174 of the Bengal Tenancy Act under which the deposit in question was made, refers only to a deposit by the judgment-debtor himself and hence the transferee of the judgment-debtor does not come under Section 174 of the Act. It was contended that the deposit that was made by him was no deposit by the judgement-debtor and that the sale, therefore, should not have been set aside.

5. In Ranjit Kumar Ghosh v. Jogendra Nath Roy 15 Ind. Cas. 561 : 16 C.L.J. 546 it was held that the application under Section 174 of the Bengal Tenancy Act can be made by the judgment-debtor alone and by no other person.

6. We, therefore, make the Rule absolute, set aside the order of the Munsif and confirm the sale.

7. This order will govern the other Rule No. 59 of 1915.


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