AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rowland, J.—The petitioner obtained a decree for arrears of rent and in execution brought the holding of the raiyat defendant to sale. The sale was knocked down at a price which left some surplus sale proceeds. The petitioner claimed in accordance with Section 169 of the Behar Tenancy Act, the costs incurred by him in bringing the holding to sale, the amount due to him under the decree and rent which fell due to him in respect of the holding between the institution of the suit and the date of the confirmation of the sale.
The Court felt no difficulty in allowing him the costs incurred by him in bringing the holding to sale and the amount due under the decree but thought that a fresh vakalatnama was necessary to enable his agent to draw any balance due to the decree-holder on account of subsequently accrued rent. The vakalatnama which had been presented by the petitioner''s Pleader in this execution gave him full authority to take out execution and to realise money in the suit or execution and to saw any decretal money deposited in Court on the petitioner''s behalf. These are explicitly provided for among the wide general powers given in the vakalatnama. The Munsif has not given any reason for requiring a separate vakalatnama to be filed and for the purpose of representation. I see no reason to distinguish the claim to money payable to the decree-holder u/s 169 (c) from money payable to him under Clauses (a) and (b). Ail such sums are monies realised in execution of the decree.
In a similar case Civil Revision No. 568 of 1935 (Hon''ble Maharajadhiraj Sir Kameskwar Singh Bahadur v. Jadu Keor decided on December 23, 1935, James, J. vacated the order of the learned Munsif requiring a fresh vakalatnama to be filed for the purpose of taking out delivery of possession. I would pass a similar order in this case.
The order of the Munsif is vacated. He should note that no fresh vakalatnama is required.