Skip to content


Durga Churn Laskar and ors. Vs. Hari Churn Das and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1894)ILR21Cal521
AppellantDurga Churn Laskar and ors.
RespondentHari Churn Das and ors.
Excerpt:
bengal tenancy act (viii of 1885), section 108 - record of rights--appeal to special judge--publication of record of rights--bengal tenancy act, sections 55, 105, 106. - .....c.j. and prinsep, j.1. this is a matter under section 102 of the bengal tenancy act in which the revenue officer was making a record of fights of a certain estate. the matter in dispute between the parties was as to who should be recorded as tenants of these particular lands, the plaintiff's contending that they held a half share with the defendants; the defendants, on the other hand, stating that they were the sole tenants. before any record of rights could be prepared, it was absolutely necessary for the revenue officer to ascertain, in the first place, who were actual tenants of these particular lands. he proceeded under section 107 to try the matter in dispute as therein directed, and his order in favour of the defendants was taken in appeal to the special judge under section 108......
Judgment:

W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Prinsep, J.

1. This is a matter under Section 102 of the Bengal Tenancy Act in which the Revenue Officer was making a record of fights of a certain estate. The matter in dispute between the parties was as to who should be recorded as tenants of these particular lands, the plaintiff's contending that they held a half share with the defendants; the defendants, on the other hand, stating that they were the sole tenants. Before any record of rights could be prepared, it was absolutely necessary for the Revenue Officer to ascertain, in the first place, who were actual tenants of these particular lands. He proceeded under Section 107 to try the matter in dispute as therein directed, and his order in favour of the defendants was taken in appeal to the Special Judge under Section 108. The Special Judge, however, has refused to try the appeal holding that the proceedings were entirely without jurisdiction because the record of rights had not been published in the manner directed by Section 105, and therefore, in his opinion, the Revenue Officer was not competent to receive and consider any objections that might be made, and not only was the Revenue Officer not competent to make any order, but there was nothing to give him (the Special Judge) jurisdiction to try the appeal on the merits.

2. The matter in dispute, however, was dealt with under Section 106, and there is nothing under Section 108 which limits the jurisdiction of the Special Judge to deal only with matters of objection taken after publication of the record of rights. We therefore, think that the order of the Special Judge was erroneous, and we accordingly set it aside. The appeal will be tried on the merits. The costs will abide the result.


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