Skip to content


Sheikh Umar Ali Vs. Jadu Ram Kapali and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in32Ind.Cas.855
AppellantSheikh Umar Ali
RespondentJadu Ram Kapali and ors.
Excerpt:
bengal tenancy act (viii of 1885), section 5 - non-transferable occupancy holding, transferee of--co-sharer landlord, recognition by, effect of. - .....the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that he had no title, because the settlement by a co-sharer landlord does not confer any title with regard to the share of that landlord. we think that the learned judge is wrong in holding that a settlement by a co-sharer landlord does not confer any title. on the other hand there is ample authority for saying that a settlement by a co-sharer landlord does confer a right with regard to the share of that landlord. we think, therefore, that the first court was right in decreeing joint possession to the plaintiff in respect of the share of 15/26ths.2. with regard to the question of limitation, it is clear from the pleading and the proceedings in the court below that the plaintiff was in possession in march 1900, that is at the time when there.....
Judgment:

1. The plaintiff in this case purchased a non-transferable occupancy holding and thereafter obtained a recognition from some of the co-sharers. The defendants had obtained a title, from some other co-sharers. The learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that he had no title, because the Settlement by a co-sharer landlord does not confer any title with regard to the share of that landlord. We think that the learned Judge is wrong in holding that a settlement by a co-sharer landlord does not confer any title. On the other hand there is Ample authority for saying that a settlement by a co-sharer landlord does confer a right with regard to the share of that landlord. We think, therefore, that the first Court was right in decreeing joint possession to the plaintiff in respect of the share of 15/26ths.

2. With regard to the question of limitation, it is clear from the pleading and the proceedings in the Court below that the plaintiff was in possession in March 1900, that is at the time when there was a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act by the defendants against the plaintiff and the suit being brought in February 1912 was quite within twelve years thereof. There is, therefore, no necessity for sending down this case to the Court below for a finding on the question of limitation.

3. We set aside the decree of the lower Appellate Court and restore that of the first Court with costs.


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