Skip to content


Srimaty Tarangini Dei Wife of Abinash Chandra Bera Vs. Baikuntha Nath Mandal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in42Ind.Cas.1
AppellantSrimaty Tarangini Dei Wife of Abinash Chandra Bera
RespondentBaikuntha Nath Mandal and ors.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 47 - representative of judgment-debtor--purchaser, collusive, of equity of redemption, whether can object to execution of mortgage-decree. - .....of the party to the suit. doubtless she was not a party to the suit, for that party was one shyam maiti. she was not also, according to the finding of the lower appellate court, a representative of shyam maiti who himself was a party to the proceeding. admitting for the sake of argument that a purchaser from a judgment-debtor is his representative, it was found as a fact that the alleged purchase on the part of the petitioner was not bona fide but a collusive transaction, which is equivalent to saying that there was no conveyance and that nothing passed to the petitioner. that being so, the judge was right in holding that the petitioner had no locus standi to maintain an application under section 47, code of civil procedure.2. the appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs, one.....
Judgment:

John Woodroffe, J.

1. The only question that arises from the judgment of the lower Appellate Court is whether the petitioner was or was not a benamidar. It must be shown that she was either a party to the suit or a representative of the party to the suit. Doubtless she was not a party to the suit, for that party was one Shyam Maiti. She was not also, according to the finding of the lower Appellate Court, a representative of Shyam Maiti who himself was a party to the proceeding. Admitting for the sake of argument that a purchaser from a judgment-debtor is his representative, it was found as a fact that the alleged purchase on the part of the petitioner was not bona fide but a collusive transaction, which is equivalent to saying that there was no conveyance and that nothing passed to the petitioner. That being so, the Judge was right in holding that the petitioner had no locus standi to maintain an application under Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs, one gold mohur.

Cuming, J.

3. I agree.


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