NAGENDRABALA DASEE Vs. PANCHANAN MOURIE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this suit, the matter in issue is what was purchased at a sale held on 7 May 1893, in execution of a decree for costs dated 17 May 1891, that is to say before I was born. In one event I shall have to dispossess the present holders. That such a case can arise I regard as a blot on our legal system. The facts in outline are as follows:

(2.) The premises in question, now known as 12/1, 12/2, Umeshehandra Datta Lane, formed, at the date of sale (i.e., in 1893), the northern portion of 175, Maniktala Street. A man named Brahmabishnu Basak and his nephew, Jadunath Basak were entitled to this property in equal Shares. The property was undivided. Brahmabishnu Basak died before 1890, leaving a widow Kantamani. After his death, Kantamani filed a suit (Suit No. 61 of 1890) against Jadunath for the recovery of two promissory notes for Rs. 1,000, alleging that these two promissory notes formed part of the estate of her deceased husband and that the endorsements in favour of the defendant, which purported to appear therein, were not genuine. In the plaint Kantamani described herself as "the widow, heiress and "administratrix" to the estate of Brahmabishnu Basak deceased. The suit was tried on evidence and the claim was dismissed. By the decree, dated 17 May 1891, which is Ex. A, it was decreed that the suit is hereby dismissed and it is further ordered and decreed that the plaintiff does pay to the defendant his costs of this suit.

(3.) This decree for costs was assigned by Jadunath to one Satkarhi Pain. On 11 July 1891 Jadunath sold his half undivided share in the premises to the same Satkarhi for Rs. 3,500. The allocatur for costs was issued on 12 December 1891, amounting to Rs. 1,763-12-0. Application for execution was made by Satkarhi by a tabular statement, dated 27 May 1892. In this the property to be attached is/described as "half share of plaintiff Kantamani as widow." On 13 July 1892, there was a prohibitory order attaching "half share of the plaintiff as the widow." On 1 June 1893, the order for sale was made and in this the property to be sold is described in the schedule as all that undivided half part or share of the said plaintiff Kantamani as the widow of Brahmabishnu Basak of and in the premises to question.