High CourtsDivision Bench(1929) 02 CAL CK 0020

Prosanna Kumar Saha vs Dhirendra Lal Gupta

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 18 February 1929 · Citation: 123 Ind. Cas. 320

HON’BLE JUDGES
Panton, J · B.B. Ghose, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 188 words
1.

In this case the order of the Subordinate Judge appears to us to be wrong. He has applied the provisions of Section 60 A of the Court of Wards Act in holding that the interest of the judgment-debtor in the property attached is not saleable. Section 60 A, however, refers to debts incurred by a ward. The judgement-debtor in this case is not a Ward of Court. The Court of Wards was appointed the common manager under the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act by the District Judge. That does not render all the co-sharers of the property wards of Court so as to disqualify them from incurring debts or selling their interest in the property in question. As every co-sharer is entitled to sell his interest, a ''creditor of such co sharer is entitled to sell his property in execution of his decree against him.

2.

The order of the Subordinate Judge is set aside and the case remitted to the Court below for proceeding with the execution. The appellant is entitled to his costs as against the respondent, which we assess at five gold mohurs.