Skip to content


Biswambhar Mandal Vs. Nasarat Ali - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1919Cal729,52Ind.Cas.355
AppellantBiswambhar Mandal
RespondentNasarat Ali
Cases ReferredAminunnisa v. Jinnat Ali
Excerpt:
landlord and tenant - under-raiyati interest, transferee of, position of--purchaser of holding at collusive sale, whether can eject transferee of under-vaiyati interest. - .....and ram-ratan. the plaintiff has been found to be a holder of a putni tenure. he brought a rent suit against his occupancy raiyats, judhistir and ramratan, and in execution of the decree he purchased the holding. both the courts below have found that the purchase of the plaintiff in this rent suit was collusive. it is contended that the plaintiff by his purchase obtained no higher rights than he would have got in a private sale. it appears to me that the appeal must fail on the ground 'that the appellant as a transferee of an under-raiyati interest had no interest in the land. see the case of aminunnisa v. jinnat ali 27 ind. cas. 271 : 20 c.l.j. 548 : 42 c. 751 : 19 c.w.n. 43. no attempt was made to prove that there was any custom by which under-raiyati holdings were.....
Judgment:

Newbould, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit in ejectment. It was contested on several grounds before the lower Appellate Court, but now the only contention is that the defendant-appellant is an under-raiyat and as such cannot be ejected without notice. It is stated in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court that the contesting defendants are the transferees of one Sarafat Ali who was an under-tenant of Judhistir and Ram-ratan. The plaintiff has been found to be a holder of a Putni tenure. He brought a rent suit against his occupancy raiyats, Judhistir and Ramratan, and in execution of the decree he purchased the holding. Both the Courts below have found that the purchase of the plaintiff in this rent suit was collusive. It is contended that the plaintiff by his purchase obtained no higher rights than he would have got in a private sale. It appears to me that the appeal must fail on the ground 'that the appellant as a transferee of an under-raiyati interest had no interest in the land. See the case of Aminunnisa v. Jinnat Ali 27 Ind. Cas. 271 : 20 C.L.J. 548 : 42 C. 751 : 19 C.W.N. 43. No attempt was made to prove that there was any custom by which under-raiyati holdings were transferable. But apart from this, it has not been shown that the result of the finding that the sale in execution of the decree was collusive, diminished the plaintiff's rights. There is no finding that there was any fraud and consequently the decree must be held to be a valid decree obtained by the consent of the defendants. The consent decree and the sale thereunder gave the purchaser as good a title as he would have had at a sale held in execution of the decree under contest.

2. The appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs.


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