Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Smith and ors. Vs. SreenaraIn Bagchee

Smith and ors. vs SreenaraIn Bagchee

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Feb 25, 1879
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/853206

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kolkata
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Subordinate tenure - setting aside sale of superior tenure, Effect of. -

Key legal issue
Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Smith and ors.

Respondent

SreenaraIn Bagchee

Legal References

Cases Referred
Ram Tuhul Singh v. Bisesvar Lall Sahoo
Reported In
(1879)ILR4Cal808

Excerpt

subordinate tenure - setting aside sale of superior tenure, effect of. - .....ought to be on terms and compelled to repay him certain portion of the purchase-money.2. it appears to us that the defendant is not in that position. that which he purchased was not the chahar-patni, nor did the land mortgage bank proceed against the chahar-patni, which had been mortgaged to it. the bank availed itself of its right to execute its decree generally, and sold the dar-patni, and by name the dar-patni granted by tarachand biswas. the defendant, in purchasing that along with other parts of turruff ramgourpore, took his chance. he has not in fact conferred any benefit upon the plaintiffs in respect of saving this particular property from sale; on the contrary, there is nothing, as far as we can see, to prevent the land mortgage bank from taking this chahar-patni in execution at any time; and even if he had, it appears to us that this was merely a voluntary payment. it was not a payment such as the plaintiff's were under any obligation, express or implied, to recognize. that being so, the case comes within the observation of the judicial committee in the case of ram tuhul singh v. bisesvar lall sahoo (l.r., 2 in. ap., 131). the observations arc in page 143. their lordships say: 'but even if this were true, it is not in every case in which a man has benefited by the money of another, that an obligation to repay that money arises.' it was a voluntary payment. in fact, the greatest difficulty would arise in apportioning, out of the whole sum, the proper amounts which had been set against this particular property. he bought an entire turruff, and by causes, no doubt beyond his control, part has gone out of his hands. the appeal must be dismissed with costs.

Full Judgment

Jackson, J.

1. The ground on which the defendant now, on appeal before us, seeks to resist the claim of the plaintiff's, is, that by the application of a portion of the purchase-money paid in respect of the entire turruff, which afforded satisfaction in part of the plaintiff's mortgage debt, he has conferred a benefit upon the plaintiff's, and, consequently, the plaintiffs, before they can recover possession of the chahar-patni, ought to be on terms and compelled to repay him certain portion of the purchase-money.

2. It appears to us that the defendant is not in that position. That which he purchased was not the chahar-patni, nor did the Land Mortgage Bank proceed against the chahar-patni, which had been mortgaged to it. The Bank availed itself of its right to execute its decree generally, and sold the dar-patni, and by name the dar-patni granted by Tarachand Biswas. The defendant, in purchasing that along with other parts of Turruff Ramgourpore, took his chance. He has not in fact conferred any benefit upon the plaintiffs in respect of saving this particular property from sale; on the contrary, there is nothing, as far as we can see, to prevent the Land Mortgage Bank from taking this chahar-patni in execution at any time; and even if he had, it appears to us that this was merely a voluntary payment. It was not a payment such as the plaintiff's were under any obligation, express or implied, to recognize. That being so, the case comes within the observation of the Judicial Committee in the case of Ram Tuhul Singh v. Bisesvar Lall Sahoo (L.R., 2 In. Ap., 131). The observations arc in page 143. Their Lordships say: 'But even if this were true, it is not in every case in which a man has benefited by the money of another, that an obligation to repay that money arises.' It was a voluntary payment. In fact, the greatest difficulty would arise in apportioning, out of the whole sum, the proper amounts which had been set against this particular property. He bought an entire turruff, and by causes, no doubt beyond his control, part has gone out of his hands. The appeal must be dismissed with costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial