Skip to content


Ram Ratan De Vs. Srinath Bhattacharji - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Limitation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1885)ILR12Cal606
AppellantRam Ratan De
RespondentSrinath Bhattacharji
Cases ReferredImam Buksh Mondal v. Momin Mondul I.L.R.
Excerpt:
bengal act viii of 1869, section 27--limitation--suit for possession--question of title. - .....acharjee v. haradhun acharjee b.l.r. sup. vol. 1020 : 9 w. r. 513 and the case of imam buksh mondal v. momin mondul i.l.r. 9 cal. 280 decided by garth, c.j. and mr. justice bose, are authorities to this effect, that where the existence of the tenure is not disputed, and the plaintiff's original title as tenant is not and never has been questioned, and where there is no question of title either raised in the suit or raised before the suit, except whether on the one hand the plaintiff has been dispossessed by force, or on the other hand his tenure has come to an end by his having relinquished it, the suit is not a suit to try title within the meaning of the rule to which we have referred, but was formerly governed by section 23 of act x of 1859, and is now governed by section 27 of bengal.....
Judgment:

Wilson and Ghose, JJ.

1. We are unable to agree in the view which has been taken in the lower Courts on the question of limitation. It has no doubt repeatedly been held that, where the suit is one to establish title, the case does not fall within Section 27 of the Rent Act. On the other hand, we think that the Full Bench case of Jonardun Acharjee v. Haradhun Acharjee B.L.R. Sup. Vol. 1020 : 9 W. R. 513 and the case of Imam Buksh Mondal v. Momin Mondul I.L.R. 9 Cal. 280 decided by Garth, C.J. and Mr. Justice Bose, are authorities to this effect, that where the existence of the tenure is not disputed, and the plaintiff's original title as tenant is not and never has been questioned, and where there is no question of title either raised in the suit or raised before the suit, except whether on the one hand the plaintiff has been dispossessed by force, or on the other hand his tenure has come to an end by his having relinquished it, the suit is not a suit to try title within the meaning of the rule to which we have referred, but was formerly governed by Section 23 of Act X of 1859, and is now governed by Section 27 of Bengal Act VIII of 1869. The appeal will therefore prevail, and the decrees of the lower Courts will be set aside with costs in all the Courts.


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