Skip to content


Dudu Bhuiya Vs. Duman Bhuiya and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1928Cal586
AppellantDudu Bhuiya
RespondentDuman Bhuiya and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....and in addition to this he acquired the raiyati interest in the five plots of land in suit. one peari poddar sued the plaintiff for money, and obtained a decree, in execution of which he brought the plaintiff's taluki interest to sale. that interest was sold in execution of the decree and was purchased by peari poddar. defendant 1 is a transferee from peari poddar. possession was taken some time in the year 1917. the court of first instance decreed the plaintiff's suit but the learned court of appeal below dismissed the suit, holding that it was barred by the special rule of limitation laid down in article 3, schedule 3, ben. ten. act. in appeal it is contended that the rule of limitation applied by the learned additional judge is not applicable;...because it is contended that the.....
Judgment:

1. This appeal is by the plaintiff against the dismissal by the Courts below of his suit, which was for declaration of his raiyati interest in five1 plots of land and for recovery of1 possession. The plaintiff was a cosharer in a. certain taluk and in addition to this he acquired the raiyati interest in the five plots of land in suit. One Peari Poddar sued the plaintiff for money, and obtained a decree, in execution of which he brought the plaintiff's taluki interest to sale. That interest was sold in execution of the decree and was purchased by Peari Poddar. Defendant 1 is a transferee from Peari Poddar. Possession was taken some time in the year 1917. The Court of first instance decreed the plaintiff's suit but the learned Court of appeal below dismissed the suit, holding that it was barred by the special rule of limitation laid down in Article 3, Schedule 3, Ben. Ten. Act. In appeal it is contended that the rule of limitation applied by the learned Additional Judge is not applicable;...because it is contended that the person who dispossessed the plaintiffs had not occupied the position of landlord, both at the time of dispossession and at the time of his purchase of the interest of the plaintiff.

2. Reference has been made to the sale certificate which describes the property sold as a share in the taluk and as being in the khas possession of the judgment-debtor. From this it is contended that Peari Poddar purported to purchase not merely the landlord's interest but also the right to khas possession and that, therefore, the article in the schedule of the Bengal Tenancy Act does not apply. There is no force in the argument. All that the article says is that the special period of limitation of two years is laid down for suits for recovery of possession by a raiyat or an under raiyat where the dispossessor is a landlord and that the date from which the limitation runs is the date of dispossession. The only thing with which we are concerned is whether or not at the time of the actual taking of possession, the person so taking possession occupied the position of landlord. If he did so, the article applies. It is perfectly immaterial whether or not that person occupied that position at the time he purchased or purported to purchase the interest of which he dispossessed the tenant.

3. The suit has been rightly decided and the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.


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