REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

PANCHANAN PAL Appellant

V/S

NIRODE KUMAR BISWAS Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

CROSBY V. LENG [REFERRED TO]
STONE V. MARSH [REFERRED TO]
WEBB V. AUSTIN [REFERRED TO]
STURGEON V. WINGFIELD [REFERRED TO]
CHURCH V. DALTON [REFERRED TO]
BENSLEY V. BURDON [REFERRED TO]
HOLROYD V. MARSHALL [REFERRED TO]
COLLYER V. ISAACS [REFERRED TO]
WILLIAMS V. BRIGGS [REFERRED TO]
SCOTT V. CLINTON [REFERRED TO]
MIDLAND INSURANCE CO. V. SMITH [REFERRED TO]
ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. BRADLAUGH [REFERRED TO]
SCARF V. JARDINE [REFERRED TO]
WELLS V. ABRAHAMS [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA SEKHAR V. MANOHARLAL [REFERRED TO]
BANK OF ENGLAND V. CUTLER [REFERRED TO]
VINE V. NATIONAL DOCK LABOUR BOARD [REFERRED TO]
ADMIRALTY COMMISSIONERS V. S.S. AMERIKA [REFERRED TO]
BHOLANATH V. BALARAM [REFERRED TO]
KALIDAS V. PRASANNA KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
LISSENDEN V. C.A.V. BOSCH LTD. [REFERRED TO]
YOUNG V. BRISTOL,AEROPLANE CO. LTD. [REFERRED TO]
MAHAMAYA V. HARIDAS [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA CHANDRA V. RASIK LAL [REFERRED TO]
BHAIRAB CHANDRA V. JIBAN KRISHNA [REFERRED TO]
SHANKAR V. GANPAT [REFERRED TO]
SMITH V. SELWYN [REFERRED TO]
TAILBY V. OFFICIAL RECEIVER [REFERRED TO]
KALYANPUR LIME WORKS LIMITED VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
(PADMANABHINI) RAMANAMMA VS. GOLUSU APPALANARASAYYA [REFERRED TO]
BENGAL COAL CO LTD VS. SITA RAM CHATTERJEE [REFERRED TO]
DARA SIVARAO VS. KOLA SUBBARAO [REFERRED TO]
TILAKDHARI LAL VS. KHEDAN LAL [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge dismissing the plaintiff's suit.

(2.) The plaintiff instituted a suit on the 10th September, 1952 against Nirode Kumar Biswas claiming only two reliefs, (1) a declaration that premises No. 1/A, Jadu Nath Sen Lane was a charge for the payment of Rs. 8,333-5-4 and (2) for a mortgage decree for the same amount under Order 34, Rule 4 in Form 5A in Schedule 1 of Appendix D of the Code of Civil Procedure. No other relief was sought. It was a plain and simple suit to enforce a charge on immovable property and for a mortgage decree thereupon.

(3.) The plaint was amended twice by the plaintiff. On the 7th January, 1953, there was an order of amendment whereby another transferee pendente lite was brought in as a second defendant--Sm. Bimala Bala Sashmal--and it was pleaded in paragraph 6A of the plaint that by a registered conveyance dated the 23rd September, 1952, one Surendra Nath Biswas claiming to be the real purchaser conveyed and the first defendant Nirode Kumar Biswas stated in that conveyance to be a benamdar of Surendra Nath Biswas confirmed the sale of the said, premises to the second defendant. No amendment, however, was sought, in the prayers of the plaint which remained as they were before. The second amendment was made by another order of the Court on the 13th March, 1956 on the application of the plaintiff. By this amendment, the plaintiff introduced the case that he acted on the statements and declaration made in the registered agreement of the 2nd April, 1948 and introduced paragraph 6B of the plaint pleading that the defendants or either of them was estopped from denying that they had respectively purchased the said property with notice of and/or subject to the charge in favour of the plaintiff. Again, no alteration was sought in the prayers of the plaint which remained the same as before for a declaration of charge on the immovable property and for a mortgage decree.

Click here to view full judgment.

PANCHANAN PAL Vs. NIRODE KUMAR BISWAS

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address