Skip to content


Lala Deo Saran Lal and ors. Vs. Baleswar Mandal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in32Ind.Cas.1003
AppellantLala Deo Saran Lal and ors.
RespondentBaleswar Mandal
Cases ReferredDayamoyi v. Ananda Mohan Roy Chowdhury
Excerpt:
occupancy-holding, non-transferable, transfer of, if operative against a co-sharer landlord purchasing it subsequently in execution of a money-decree. - .....occupancy-holding on declaration of his title there to.2. it appears that he purchased it from the original tenants by a deed, dated 11th september 1907. the defendants, first party, purchased it in 1911 in execution of their own money-decree against the same tenants. the district judge has held that the plaintiff's purchase was a genuine purchase and he has also found that the plaintiff's possession from and since the date of his purchase has been proved.3. from the decision of the full bench of this court in dayamoyi v. ananda mohan roy chowdhury 27 ind. cas. 61; 20 c.l.j. 52. 42 c 172; 18 c.w.n. 971 (f.b.), it is clear that the voluntary transfer by the original raiyat made on the 11th september 1907 is operative against the raiyat and also operative against all person other than the.....
Judgment:

1. This is an appeal by the defendants first party in a suit brought by the plaintiff for confirmation of his possession in an occupancy-holding on declaration of his title there to.

2. It appears that he purchased it from the original tenants by a deed, dated 11th September 1907. The defendants, first party, purchased it in 1911 in execution of their own money-decree against the same tenants. The District Judge has held that the plaintiff's purchase was a genuine purchase and he has also found that the plaintiff's possession from and since the date of his purchase has been proved.

3. From the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Dayamoyi v. Ananda Mohan Roy Chowdhury 27 Ind. Cas. 61; 20 C.L.J. 52. 42 C 172; 18 C.W.N. 971 (F.B.), it is clear that the voluntary transfer by the original raiyat made on the 11th September 1907 is operative against the raiyat and also operative against all person other than the landlord including obviously a subsequent purchaser from the same raiyat. It has been suggested that the fact that the purchasers are co-sharer landlords puts them in a better position than a stranger purchaser would be. No authority for this proposition has been submitted to us and we cannot see why on principle the fact that the subsequent purchaser is a co-sharer landlord should affect the question.

4. For these reasons we dismiss this appeal with costs.


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