Skip to content


Khitish Chandra Acharya Chowdhury Vs. the Khulna Loan Company Ld. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in14Ind.Cas.728
AppellantKhitish Chandra Acharya Chowdhury
RespondentThe Khulna Loan Company Ld.
Cases ReferredJogonath v. Mohi
Excerpt:
putni regulation (viii of 1819), section 17 clause (c) - sale of tenure for arrears of rent-arrears antecedent to that period--personal debts--re-sale of tenure. - .....in an application for execution of a decree. it appears that the decree was for rent of a certain putni taluk which had been previously sold for subsequent arrears of rent and purchased by the khulna loan company limited. the decree-holder, in execution of his decree, sought to recover the decretal amount being rent for an antecedent period by sale for the second time of this putni taluk. both the lower courts held that he was not entitled to execute his decree by sale of the putni taluk after it had already been sold once for subsequent arrears of rent and that his remedy lay in a suit against the original tenant for recovery of the amount of rent due for previous years as a money debt. the learned pleader who appears in support of the appeal contends, on the authority of case of the.....
Judgment:

1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of Khulna confirming an order of the Subordinate Judge, of that place in an application for execution of a decree. It appears that the decree was for rent of a certain putni taluk which had been previously sold for subsequent arrears of rent and purchased by the Khulna Loan Company Limited. The decree-holder, in execution of his decree, sought to recover the decretal amount being rent for an antecedent period by sale for the second time of this putni taluk. Both the lower Courts held that he was not entitled to execute his decree by sale of the putni taluk after it had already been sold once for subsequent arrears of rent and that his remedy lay in a suit against the original tenant for recovery of the amount of rent due for previous years as a money debt. The learned Pleader who appears in support of the appeal contends, on the authority of case of the Peary Mohan Mukhopadhya v. Sreeram Chandra Bose 6 C.W.N. 794 that his client is entitled to have the tenure re-sold and that the orders passed by both the lower Courts are wrong and should be set aside. We are unable to accept this contention as valid. We had the same matter before us in the case of Jogonath v. Mohi-ud din Mirza 6 Ind. Cas. 371 : 37 C. 747 and we hold that, under the provisions of Section 17 Clause (c) of the Putni Regulation (VIII of 1819), arrears of rent for a period antecedent to the period to recover the rent of which the tenure had been sold must be regarded as personal debts recoverable under the ordinary procedure for the recovery of debts and not by resale of the tenure. We see no reason to differ from the view which we expressed in that case and we think that that concludes the present appeal. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs, three gold mohurs.


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