REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

JATA BHUSAN CHATTERJEE Appellant

V/S

KRISHNA BHAMINI DEBI Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

WICKHAM V. NEW BRUNSWICK AND CANADA RLY.CO. [REFERRED TO]
MADELL V. THOMAS AND CO. [REFERRED TO]
HEMALATE DEBI V. BHAWANI CHARAN ROY [REFERRED TO]
ASUTOSH BONERJEE V. LUKHIMONEE DEBIA [REFERRED TO]
AUBHOYESSURY DABEE V. GOURI SUNKUR [REFERRED TO]
KULODA PROSAD CHATTERJEE V. JAGESHAR KOER [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL GAFFAR KHAN V. ISHTIAQ ALI [REFERRED TO]
MR.INDRANI V. MAHARAJ NARAIN [REFERRED TO]
MANICK RAM V. RAM AUTAR [REFERRED TO]
FATEH ALI V. GOBARDHAN PROSAD [REFERRED TO]
RUSTAMALLI GOHARALLI MIRZA VS. AFTABHUSEINKHAN NAJAFALLIKHAN MIRZA [REFERRED TO]
SHEONANDAN PANDEY VS. MTASARFI KUER [REFERRED TO]
SASHI BHUSAN GHOSE VS. BHUPENDRA NATH PAL [REFERRED TO]
KASHI CHANDRA CHAKRAVARTI VS. PRIYANATH BAKSHI [REFERRED TO]
L A CREET VS. FIRM GANGARAJ-GULRAJ [REFERRED TO]
SAH BADHA KRISHNA VS. MTBECHNI DEBI [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts out of which this appeal arises are not ill dispute. They are briefly as follows:

(2.) Respondent No. 1 Krishna Bhamini Debi, widow of late Bibhakar Chatterji, obtained a decree against respondent No. 2 Amal Krishna Chatterji, her step-son, in Title Suit No. 268 of 1945. The decree was modified on appeal and this decree, so modified, is in the following terms:

(3.) The first question raised in this appeal is whether the charge that was created by the decree in favour of Krishna Bhamini is enforceable in execution. Mr. Lala on behalf of the appellant refers to Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act and argues that, although the Calcutta decisions are against him, on a proper construction of the section as held in a number of cases to which I shall presently refer, the charge was not enforceable in execution.

Click here to view full judgment.

JATA BHUSAN CHATTERJEE Vs. KRISHNA BHAMINI DEBI

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address