MATHURAPORE ZEMINDARY COMPANY LIMITED Vs. BHASARAM MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts which have given rise to this appeal are quite simple.

(2.) On the 4 February, 1920, Mr. G. Hennessy and others obtained a decree for rent against the respondents. The appellants, the Mathurapur Zemindary Company Limited on the 17th July, 1920 applied for execution of the said decree after being substituted in the place of the decree-holders on the basis of certain assignments in respect of the decree-holders properties alleged to have been made in the first instance in September, 1919, and thereafter in January 1920. The learned Munsiff in whose Court the said application was made issued notice on the judgment debtors to show cause why the substitution should not be made. The judgment- debtors appeared, denied that there was any assignment of the decree in question and challenged the locus standi of the appellants to get themselves substituted or proceed with the execution. The learned Munsiff held that the appellants were not transferees of the decree either by assignment in writing or by operation of law and therefore they were not competent to apply for execution and consequently dismissed the application for execution. On appeal being taken from the said order, the order was affirmed and hence the present appeal to this Court.

(3.) It was contended on behalf of the appellants that by reason of the provisions of Section 148 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, a mere assignment of the decree would not have enabled them to execute the same as a rent decree, and inasmuch as they are assignees of the decree-holders properties in respect of which the rent decree was passed, they were in a better position than mere assignees of the decree, that though there was no assignment of the decree in writing, there was one by operation of law inasmuch as the assignment of the properties had been made together with all arrears of rent and on principles of equity it should have been held that they were transferees of the decree by assignment. Reliance was placed on their behalf upon the case of Ananda Mohan Ray V/s. Promotha Nath Ganguli 57 Ind. Cas. 874 : 25 C.W.N. 863. It is unnecessary to refer to the other oases cited as they do not appear to bear upon the aforesaid contentions.