Karamali Molla Vs. TamijuddIn Molla and ors.

Karamali Molla vs TamijuddIn Molla and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Feb 10, 1920

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/857760

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/857760
Court: Kolkata
Judge: N.R. Chatterjea and ;Panton, JJ.
Decided On: Feb 10, 1920
Subject: Tenancy

Case Summary

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

Bengal Tenancy Act (VIII of 1885), Section 174 - Order setting aside sale--Appeal, second, whether competent--Civil Procedure Code (Act V of 1908), Section 115--Application to set aside sale--Deposit of compensation--Mistake of Court in calculating amount--Sale set aside--Revision. -

Key legal issue: Tenancy

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Karamali Molla

Respondent

TamijuddIn Molla and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: 58Ind.Cas.816

Excerpt

bengal tenancy act (viii of 1885), section 174 - order setting aside sale--appeal, second, whether competent--civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 115--application to set aside sale--deposit of compensation--mistake of court in calculating amount--sale set aside--revision. - 1. we think that the objection raised on behalf of the respondent that, in this case, there is no second appeal to this court, must prevail.2. we have been asked to treat the appeal as an application under section 115, civil procedure code, we do not think that this is a case in v. this court should exercise its powers of revision, assuming that the orders of the lower court are erroneous.3. the application to set aside the sale was made on deposit of the amount within 30 days' from the data of the sale. the amount deposited fell short by a few rupees of the amount of compensation due to the purchaser. this has, been found by both courts to have been due to a mistake on the part of the sheristadar who gave information to the petitioner, apparently according to the practice prevailing in that court,, and also due to his mistake in checking the, chalan. as soon as the mistake was found out, the deficit amount was deposited by the applicant. the property is said to be worth rs. 4,000 and was purchased for rs. 213.4. the appeal must be dismissed. no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

1. We think that the objection raised on behalf of the respondent that, in this case, there is no second appeal to this Court, must prevail.

2. We have been asked to treat the appeal as an application under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, We do not think that this is a case in v. this Court should exercise its powers of revision, assuming that the orders of the lower Court are erroneous.

3. The application to set aside the sale was made on deposit of the amount within 30 days' from the data of the sale. The amount deposited fell short by a few rupees of the amount of compensation due to the purchaser. This has, been found by both Courts to have been due to a mistake on the part of the Sheristadar who gave information to the petitioner, apparently according to the practice prevailing in that Court,, and also due to his mistake in checking the, Chalan. As soon as the mistake was found out, the deficit amount was deposited by the applicant. The property is said to be worth Rs. 4,000 and was purchased for Rs. 213.

4. The appeal must be dismissed. No order as to costs.

Same Parties Karamali Molla vs TamijuddIn Molla and ors. Same Subject Tenancy Same Judge N.R. Chatterjea and ;Panton, JJ.

Tenancy