RANJIT SHAW Vs. SAMARENDRAJIT SHAW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the plaintiff decree-holder's application for leave to execute the decrees obtained by him against the Official Receiver in Rent Suits Nos. 546 of 1952, 548 of 1952, 549 of 1952, 654 of 1952 and 329 of 1950, all of the Second Munsif's Court, Howrah, by attachment and sale of the properties of Sri Birendrajit Saha, Sri Ranjit Saha and Sri Samarendrajit Saha, the tenants of the applicant, and which properties still continue to be in the possession of the Official Receiver. The applicant also asks that the costs of and incidental to this application be added to his decrees and be costs in the execution proceedings.

(2.) There is no opposition from the judgment-debtors to this application. But the Receiver has appeared through Mr. P. N. Ghose. Solicitor. The objection on behalf of the Receiver is that this application was not necessary because leave had already been granted to the applicant as plaintiff in those suits to sue the Receiver. It is contended that such leave to sue for rents include's and covers leave to execute the rent decree against properties in the hands of the Receiver. As the point was of some importance I adjourned the matter to Court, although it came on Chamber Summons. Mr. Ganguli, the Solicitor who appears for the applicant, draws my attention to a decision of Buckley J. in 'Morris v. Baker', (1904) 52 WR (Eng.) 207. There it appears that almost an identical point was raised at the Bar and decided by the Court. At page 208 of that report Buckley J. observes :

(3.) On this ground Buckley J. came to the conclusion that the leave which was given to issue a writ for the recovery of possession did not extend beyond leave to try the question who was entitled to judgment for possession. It must be made clear that the whole question before Buckley J. turned on the construction of the words "leave to issue a writ for the recovery of possession" which occurred in the order of the Master of 17-9-1903 in that case.