Skip to content


Ranijulla Vs. Ishab Dhali - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1902)ILR29Cal610
AppellantRanijulla
Respondentishab Dhali
Cases ReferredHara Kumar Nath v. Sheikh Nasaruddin
Excerpt:
bengal tenancy act (viii of 1885), schedule iii, article 3. - limitation--suit by an occupancy raiyat where the landlord has no hand in the ouster. - .....referred is. when an occupancy raiyat is dispossessed and the landlord has had no hand in the ouster, what is the period of limitation applicable? is it twelve years or two years under article 3, schedule iii of the bengal tenancy act? in my opinion the period of twelve years applies, in the state of circumstances mentioned in the question. and if the case of hara kumar nath v. sheikh nasaruddin (1900) 4 c. w. n. 665. decides the contrary, in my opinion, with all deference to the learned judges who take the opposite view, that case was not rightly decided. i notice in that case that the learned judges say: 'and we must take it that the original ouster was, if not in substance, in reality done with the assent of the landlord.' that was the finding.2. as regards any other points in.....
Judgment:

Maclean, C.J.

1. The question referred is. When an occupancy raiyat is dispossessed and the landlord has had no hand in the ouster, what is the period of limitation applicable? Is it twelve years or two years under Article 3, Schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act? In my opinion the period of twelve years applies, in the state of circumstances mentioned in the question. And if the case of Hara Kumar Nath v. Sheikh Nasaruddin (1900) 4 C. W. N. 665. decides the contrary, in my opinion, with all deference to the learned Judges who take the opposite view, that case was not rightly decided. I notice in that case that the learned Judges say: 'And we must take it that the original ouster was, if not in substance, in reality done with the assent of the landlord.' That was the finding.

2. As regards any other points in the present case, the case must go back for their decision to the Division Bench which submitted it to us, with this expression of opinion upon the point actually referred.

3. The appellant must pay the costs of this hearing.

Prinsep, J.

4. I am of the same opinion.

Ghose, J.

5. I am of the same opinion.

Hill, J.

6. I am of the same opinion.

Henderson, J.

7. I am of the same opinion.


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