9911796707
TMI Blog1894 (7) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eded to the estate, and while she was in possession thereof, she sold the said property to the defendants. In Baisakh 1297 (B.S.) Sudhamoyi Dasi died, and the plaintiff inherited the estate as heiress of her father. In the year 1890, that is to say, in the same year that the plaintiff's mother died, a decree was obtained by the landlord against the defendants for the rent of the said property (it being a tenure held under him) and another property. The rent that was claimed, and the decree obtained by the landlord, were on account of a period antecedent to the time when the estate, upon the death of Sudhamoyi Dasi, devolved on the plaintiff. The landlord took out execution of this decree and attached the property in question and allotte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s whether, under these circumstances, the said payment was a voluntary one or not. 4. There can be no doubt that if the plaintiff had not paid up the decree of the landlord, this property would have been sold up. What might have been the estate which the purchaser would have acquired under the sale is no doubt another question. It is quite possible that he would have acquired only the right, title and interest, whatever that might have been, of the defendants. But still the property was liable to be sold in execution of the decree obtained by the landlord, and there was at that time a question between the parties as to whether the property really belonged to the plaintiff or to the defendants. Under these circumstances the plaintiff pai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rises in this case was considered, and the learned Judges there held that the payment was not a voluntary one, but was a payment which fell either under Section 69 or under Section 70 of the Contract Act. In the case of Jugdeo Narain Singh v. Raja Singh I.L.R Cal. 656 where in execution of a decree the plaintiff had purchased certain property, and the defendant, in execution of another decree against the former owner of the property, proceeded to execute his decree against the same property, and the plaintiff, in order to prevent the sale, paid the amount of the defendant's decree into Court, and subsequently brought a suit against the defendant to recover the amount so paid to prevent the sale, it was held that the payment was not volu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
