Skip to content


Haridas Majumdar Vs. Golam MahiuddIn Faruqi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1927Cal256
AppellantHaridas Majumdar
RespondentGolam MahiuddIn Faruqi
Excerpt:
- .....had been referred, to the full bench, did not arise.8. in my judgment, as far as the present proceedings are concerned, this court is bound by the abovementioned findings as to the position of the respondent and it must therefore be taken that the respondent was not a co-sharer but that he was the owner of the patni taluk so the extent of 16 annas.9. it appears that there must have been some misunderstanding, when the matter was before my learned brothers, constituting the division bench, for i am of opinion that the questions which have been referred do not arise.10. when the reference is in a second appeal and the question, which has been referred to the full bench, is decided by the full bench then the full bench disposes of the second appeal. but it appears to be the practice that.....
Judgment:

Sanderson, C.J.

1. This is a Reference by two of my learned brothers in certain second appeals.

2. The appeals were divided by the learned Judge into three groups, and it was the third group of appeals, to which the questions, which were referred, related.

3. The questions were as follows; (i) whether a co-sharer collecting his own shares of the rent separately from the other co-sharer or co-sharers is a joint landlord within the meaning of Section 188 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and (ii) whether such a co-sharer is entitled to make an application under Section 105 of the Act.

4. The proceedings were initiated by the landlord under Section 105 of Bengal Tenancy Act and it appeals from the judgment of the Assistant Settlement Officer that it was an admitted fact that the shares of the entire talk passed into the hands of the plaintiff's predecessor gradually by sale.

5. The judgment of the learned Special Judge of Tippera with regard to this point was as follows:

The plaintiff is sixteen annas proprietor of a patni taluk in which the tenancies are situated and claimed enhancement of rent under Section 80(b) and additional rent under Section 52.

6. In another part of his judgment the learned Judge said as follows:

I have observed that the plaintiff is now sixteen annas proprietor but he has been so only since 1312 B.S.

7. The learned vakil, who appeared for the respondent : drew our attention to these passages in the two judgments and argued that the point involved in the two questions, which had been referred, to the Full Bench, did not arise.

8. In my judgment, as far as the present proceedings are concerned, this Court is bound by the abovementioned findings as to the position of the respondent and it must therefore be taken that the respondent was not a co-sharer but that he was the owner of the patni taluk So the extent of 16 annas.

9. It appears that there must have been some misunderstanding, when the matter was before my learned brothers, constituting the Division Bench, for I am of opinion that the questions which have been referred do not arise.

10. When the reference is in a second appeal and the question, which has been referred to the Full Bench, is decided by the Full Bench then the Full Bench disposes of the second appeal. But it appears to be the practice that when the Full Bench considers that the point which has been referred does not arise, the matter is referred to the Division Bench for disposal.

11. For these reasons, in my judgment, these appeals must be remanded to the Division Bench for disposal.

Chatterjea, J.

12. I agree.

Rankin, J.

13. I agree.

Suhrawardy, J.

14. I agree.

Panton, J.

15. I agree.


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