JATINDRA NARAIN BHADURI Vs. CHANDRA NATH PRAMANIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a certain execution proceeding. The facts are as follows: Some estate belonging to the well-known Tagore family of Calcutta was sold in execution of a mortgage-decree and purchased by the present applicant together with all moneys due from tenants in respect of arrears of rent and cesses or other-wise payable to the proprietors. The purchaser under the terms of his purchase seeks to execute against the present appellants a certain decree which had been obtained by the Tagores against the present appellants on the 28 January 1919. 1 he purchase at the execution sale was made in December 1919. The judgment-debtors contend that the expression "with all money due from the tenants in respect of arrears of rent" does not include arrears of rent which have been merged into a decree. They would seem to contend that if it had been intended to sell such arrears of rent as had been merged into a decree the sale-certificate would have mentioned the same specifically. THIS contention found no favour with either of the Courts below nor are we prepared to accept it. The respondent purchased all moneys due from the tenants in respect of arrears of rent and an arrear of rent, if still unpaid, is still rent even though it has been merged into a decree. If money is still due, mere obtaining a decree does not change the nature of the arrears of rent and it must still be considered to be an arrear of rent. If any authority is needed for this elementary proposition reference may be made to the case of Ananda Mohan V/s. Promotha Nath [1920] 25 C.W.N. 863. We are of opinion that the expression "all moneys due from tenants in respect of arrears of rent" includes also the rent decree which was obtained against the tenants prior to the sale. In this view of the case the appeal is dismissed with costs two gold mohurs. The respondent will also get the costs of the Rule, which was assessed at one gold mohur. Sukrawardy, J.

(2.) I agree.