Skip to content


Nursingh Lal and ors. Vs. Hurry Ram and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1894)ILR21Cal129
AppellantNursingh Lal and ors.
RespondentHurry Ram and anr.
Excerpt:
criminal proceedings - irregularity--magistrate passing sentence before finishing his judgment--criminal procedure code (act x of 1882), sections 305, 307 and 537. - .....was the intention of the legislature to exclude from its operation horticultural land to which the provisions of the. repealed act had uniformly been held to apply.4. it is further contended that both the courts below in holding that the plaintiffs' possession continued up to 1295 have omitted to find in what way they held possession. the plaintiffs' case is set out in paragraph 4 of the plaint, that they held possession through under-tenants; and we must take it that in holding that the plaintiffs' possession was established, the lower courts meant to find that it was established in the particular way set out by them.5. the appeal is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

Macpherson and Banerjee, JJ.

1. In this case both the Courts have found that the plaintiffs have held this land for a period of about fifty years, and that they had acquired a right of occupancy in it before the Tenancy Act of 1869 was repealed by the present Act.

2. It is contended that there is no provision in the present Act by which a person who holds land for any purpose other than that of cultivation can acquire in it a right of occupancy, that the plaintiffs are not ryots as defined in the present Act, and that Section 19, which saves a right of occupancy acquired by a ryot before the commencement of the present Act, has no application to the plaintiff's.

3. In the first place we should be disposed to hold, apart altogether from the provisions of Section 19, that if a right of occupancy had been acquired under the old Tenancy Act, it is not forfeited by the repeal of that Act, there being nothing in the new enactment to deprive any person of a statutory right which bad been actually acquired. It is unnecessary to say more for the purpose of this appeal; but we should also be disposed to hold that there is nothing in the definition of a ryot in the present Act which would include a person who had taken land for horticultural purposes. The definition is not, as the word primarily would denote, an exhaustive definition; and there is nothing in the Act to indicate that it was the intention of the Legislature to exclude from its operation horticultural land to which the provisions of the. repealed Act had uniformly been held to apply.

4. It is further contended that both the Courts below in holding that the plaintiffs' possession continued up to 1295 have omitted to find in what way they held possession. The plaintiffs' case is set out in paragraph 4 of the plaint, that they held possession through under-tenants; and we must take it that in holding that the plaintiffs' possession was established, the lower Courts meant to find that it was established in the particular way set out by them.

5. The appeal is dismissed with costs.


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