AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
2 paragraphs · 144 wordsStephen, J.—The petitioner before us is a mortgagee of a non-transferable occupancy-holding which was brought to sale in execution of a rent-decree and purchased''by theland-lord decree-holder. Subsequently he sought to deposit in Court the decretal amount and compensation under Order XXI, Rule 89, but the Court refused to accept it on the ground that he had not any interest under the rule in question. A Rule has been granted to show cause why the order should not be set aside on the ground that he had such an interest. We are, however, of opinion, that the case is covered by the authority of Nalini Baliari Boy v. Fulmani Dasi 13 Ind. Cas. 487 : 15 C.L.J. 388 : 16 C.W.N. 421 on which the lower Court relied; and the Rule is accordingly discharged with costs. Hearing fee one gold mohur.
Mullick, J.--I agree.