Skip to content


Bhujanga Bhusan Mukherjee Vs. Kalidas Das and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1937Cal333,173Ind.Cas.896
AppellantBhujanga Bhusan Mukherjee
RespondentKalidas Das and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....co-plaintiff in a suit for rent, a co-sharer, in accordance with the provisions of section 148-a, bengal tenancy act, was barred by limitation, in view of the position that the co-sharer landlord was made a co-plaintiff in the suit, after service of summons on him as a defendant and on an application made by him for being joined as co-plaintiff, on payment of court-fee on the amount of his claim. in view of the definite provisions contained in section 148-a that a co-sharer defendant shall be joined as a co-plaintiff in respect of the rent due to him up to the date of the institution of the suit, there could be no bar of limitation operating against the party so made a co-plaintiff. this is the position arising on the section itself and it is not necessary for such a co-plaintiff to.....
Judgment:

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether any part of the claim made by a co-plaintiff in a suit for rent, a co-sharer, in accordance with the provisions of Section 148-A, Bengal Tenancy Act, was barred by limitation, in view of the position that the co-sharer landlord was made a co-plaintiff in the suit, after service of summons on him as a defendant and on an application made by him for being joined as co-plaintiff, on payment of court-fee on the amount of his claim. In view of the definite provisions contained in Section 148-A that a co-sharer defendant shall be joined as a co-plaintiff in respect of the rent due to him up to the date of the institution of the suit, there could be no bar of limitation operating against the party so made a co-plaintiff. This is the position arising on the section itself and it is not necessary for such a co-plaintiff to call into his aid the provisions of the Limitation Act as contained in Section 22 for saving any bar of limitation. The special limitation for a suit for rent as provided by the Bengal Tenancy Act cannot have also any application in a case in which the co-sharer plaintiff in suing for his share of rent had made his other co-sharer a defendant and in which that defendant had followed the procedure laid down in Section 148-A in respect of his own claim, in the matter of being joined as co-plaintiff in the suit already instituted.

2. The decision arrived at by the Courts below cannot be supported on the provisions of Section 148-A, Bengal Tenancy Act, as they stand and in our judgment, the object of these provisions would be entirely frustrated if we were to hold as has been held by the learned District Judge in the Court below that it would be inequitable to allow the appellant to derive advantage from the alertness of his co-sharers and that the claim of the appellant for the rent due for the year 1336 B.S. in the case before, was barred by limitation. In the result the appeal is allowed. The decree passed by the Courts below disallowing a part of the claim of co-plaintiff 2, appellant, for rent, is set aside. The appellant is held entitled to a decree in the suit in which this appeal has arisen for the entire amount of rent and cesses with damages as claimed by him in his application under Section 148-A, Bengal Tenancy Act, on which he was made a co-plaintiff in the suit. The appellant is to get his costs in the litigation, including the costs in this appeal, from the defendants-respondents.


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