Skip to content


G.S. Hates Vs. Ghina Barhi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy;Property
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1906)ILR33Cal459
AppellantG.S. Hates
RespondentGhina Barhi
Excerpt:
landlord and tenant - ejectment--liability to ejectment--eight of occupancy--effect of acquisition of right of occupancy over portion, of holding. - .....appears that, by a lease dated so far back as the year 1862, this ghat was, together with certain jote lands, let out to the defendants' predecessors in title at an annual jama of rs. 45, that is to say, both for the jote land and the ghat. that lease was for five years and, after it came to an end, the defendants held over for a great many years on the same terms. the result of that has been that the defendants have now acquired the position of occupancy raiyats as regards the jote land. now, the plaintiffs say that this rent of rs. 45 for both the ghat and the jote land is insufficient,' and that the defendants are not, under any circumstances, entitled to the ghat and they gave them notice to give it up, and, on their refusal to do so, they have brought the present action.2. both the.....
Judgment:

Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.

1. This is a suit to recover khas Possession of a ghat called Ghat Tarabari. It appears that, by a lease dated so far back as the year 1862, this ghat was, together with certain jote lands, let out to the defendants' predecessors in title at an annual jama of Rs. 45, that is to say, both for the jote land and the ghat. That lease was for five years and, after it came to an end, the defendants held over for a great many years on the same terms. The result of that has been that the defendants have now acquired the position of occupancy raiyats as regards the jote land. Now, the plaintiffs say that this rent of Rs. 45 for both the ghat and the jote land is insufficient,' and that the defendants are not, under any circumstances, entitled to the ghat and they gave them notice to give it up, and, on their refusal to do so, they have brought the present action.

2. Both the Courts have decided against the plaintiffs, who have appealed. It seems to me that in this state of circumstances, the question is not a very difficult one as regards the right of the plaintiffs. No doubt they cannot get rid of the defendants so far as the jote lands are conferred by reason of the fact that they have acquired the position of occupancy raiyats. Bat what is the defendant's position as regards the ghat? Their lease has come to an end and they have not acquired the position of occupancy raiyats in relation to the ghat. The ghat belongs to the plaintiffs and why should not they recover possession? It is suggested that you cannot split up the contract, this contract of tenancy. That may be perfectly true, but the lease has come to an end and the defendants are entitled to the agricultural land, not under the lease, but by the right they have acquired as oocupancy raiyats, a position they cannot maintain as regards the ghat. It is a fallacy therefore to speak of splitting up the contract: the contract of tenancy created by the lease is at an end. It seems to me that the plaintiffs are clearly entitled to a decree for khas possession of the ghat. The decrees of the Lower Courts will accordingly be set aside and the plaintiffs will get a decree for khas possession of the ghat with costs and mesne profits, the amount of which will be ascertained in execution.

Mookerjee, J.

3. I am of the same opinion.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //