Chennai Court November 1886 Judgments

Paramananda Doss Ananda Doss and anr. Vs. Mahabar Dossji

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (1897)7MLJ89

1. No doubt in Jagat Narain v. Jag Rup, Oldfield, J., observed that the word 'representative' in Section 244, Civil Procedure Code has no more extended meaning than heir, devisee, or executor I.L.R. 5 A. 456. But in Badri Narain v. Jai Kishen Das I.L.R. 15 A. 456. Bdge C.J., and Banerji, J, give strong reasons for holding that the term in question has in the context a wider signification. Accordingly, when a person purchased mortgaged property from the mortgagor after a decree had been obtained against him by the mortgagee for the enforcement of the latter's right, such purchaser was held by the Calcutta and Allahabad Courts to be, within the meaning of Section 244 a ' representative' of the mortgagor-defendant (Gour Sundar Lahiri v. Hem Ghunder Chowdhury I.L.R. (1889) C. 355 and Janki Prasad v. All I.L.R. (1889) A. 842.2. This being so, it is difficult to distinguish on principle the case of the respondent here from the decisions just cited. For, though in the present instance, the ap...