Skip to content


Profulla Chandra Gangopadhaya Vs. Raj Mohan Das - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1940Cal81
AppellantProfulla Chandra Gangopadhaya
RespondentRaj Mohan Das
Excerpt:
- .....26-p was amended came into operation on 1st august 1938. the petitioner filed an application for preemption under section 26-f on 22nd september 1938. the learned munsif before whom this application was filed has come to the conclusion that as the machinery for enforcing the right of pre-emption has already been taken away by the amending act which came into operation before the application for pre-emption was filed, he had no jurisdiction to entertain that application. he accordingly rejected the application. hence this rule was obtained by the petitioner. it is clear that section 26-f which has now been amended provided also for a procedure according to which the right of preemption had to be exercised. that procedure has now been abrogated. the munsif, therefore, could not entertain.....
Judgment:

Nasim Ali, J.

1. An occupancy holding was sold in execution of a decree on 9th April 1938. Notice of this transfer was served upon the petitioner on 12th August 1938. The Bengal Tenancy (Amendment) Act of 1938 by which Section 26-P was amended came into operation on 1st August 1938. The petitioner filed an application for preemption under Section 26-F on 22nd September 1938. The learned Munsif before whom this application was filed has come to the conclusion that as the machinery for enforcing the right of pre-emption has already been taken away by the amending Act which came into operation before the application for pre-emption was filed, he had no jurisdiction to entertain that application. He accordingly rejected the application. Hence this Rule was obtained by the petitioner. It is clear that Section 26-F which has now been amended provided also for a procedure according to which the right of preemption had to be exercised. That procedure has now been abrogated. The Munsif, therefore, could not entertain the application for pre-emption under that procedure. The question as to whether after the amendment of Section 26-F the right of pre-emption still survives and can be enforced by a suit in the ordinary Civil Court is a matter on which we express no opinion. The rule is accordingly discharged, but there will be no order as to costs.

Rau, J.

2. I agree.


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