Skip to content


Pravakar Majumdar and anr. Vs. Upendra Nath (Chandra in Vaklautnamah) Bhowmik - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1919Cal592,53Ind.Cas.564
AppellantPravakar Majumdar and anr.
RespondentUpendra Nath (Chandra in Vaklautnamah) Bhowmik
Cases ReferredDwijendra Nath Boy v. Aftabuddi
Excerpt:
landlord and tenant - holding, purchaser of--failure to get possession of one plot--suspension of rent--abatement. - .....these have been consolidated, they are mentioned as three definite holdings with three different rentals, and there is no difficulty in separating the plot in dispute. sinee the defendant has not obtained possession of that plot, it ought to as held that the plaintiff is not entitled to rent of that plot of land from the defendant.4. it is also urged before us that the defendant is not in possession of other plots of land, that the utmost that can be sail is that he was in possession of 21 bighas only. the munsif deals with it and says that he is not prepared to accept the statement of the defendant in that respect. he comes to a definite finding with regard to the plot, which we have dealt with. this does not seam to call for a remand having regard to the finding arrived at by.....
Judgment:

1. The plaintiff appears to have brought, three rent suits in respect of certain holdings, being Suits Nos. 523 of 1907, 525 of 1907 and 529 of 1907, and obtained decrees in all. So far as the holding in Suit No. 523 is concerned, the plaintiff purchased it as decree-holder in 1908 and settled it with a tenant in 1913. Then in respect of the holdings in the two other suits, being three jotes, they were sold in 1910 and bought by the defendant. It appears that in 1911 the plaintiff recognised the purchaser as tenant and recorded his name in his sherista. These three holdings, which are covered by Suits Nos, 525 and 529. were coneolidate into one jote and the plaintiff sued for rent in respect thereof. The defence was that the defendant had not obtained possession of a plot of land in that jote amongst others, a plot measuring 4 bighas and 7 cottahs.

2. It was found by the learned Munsif that the plaintiff was in possession of this disputed plot before the defendant's purchase and that after the defendant's purchase he settled it with another party. He also holds that this plot really belongs to the holding covered by Suits Nos. 525 and 529, whereas the plaintiff apparently dealt with it as a plot covered by Suit No. 523. Therefore, the facts as found by the learned Munsif and the Appellate Court are these: that the three holdings which are covered by Suits Nos. 525 and 529 include the plot of land 4 bighas 7 cottahs, that the plaintiff recognised the defendant as his tenant, that he was in possession of it before the defendant's purchase and after the defendant's purchase and recognition of him as tenant, settlement was made with another party. It was thereupon held by both Courts that there ought to be a suspension of rent as the defendant is paid to have been dispossessed by the plaintiff.

3. It has been contended before us that it is not a case of demise by the plaintiff to the defendant, that these holdings were put up to sale under rent-decrees, that the holdings were sold by the Court and the purchaser derived his title from his purchase and that nothing further was necessary to perfect his title and the recognition of him as tenant by the plaintiff did not add to the title which he had acquired in consequence of the purchase. It is contended that this not being a case of demise by the plaintiff and not being a case in which he can be held in any way responsible for giving possession to the defendant, who could assert his right in the execution proceedings or obtain it through Court, the question of suspension of rent does not arise. We agree this is not a case for suspension. Nothing has been found to indicate that there was any mala fide dealing by the plaintiff. There is nothing to show that he caused any eviction or ejectment of the defendant in repeat of this plot of land. There is no tortuous act alleged against him. The utmost that can be said is that ha made a mistake in settling the plot he purchased in 190 i. If the subsequent settlement is bad, the defendant can set it aside, The plaintiff did not bring him on the land, or induced him to come. In view of these circumstances we are unable to hold that' Dwijendra Nath Boy v. Aftabuddi (6) is of any avail as against the plaintiff's claim. It is also to be noticed that so far as these plots are concerned, although these have been consolidated, they are mentioned as three definite holdings with three different rentals, and there is no difficulty in separating the plot in dispute. Sinee the defendant has not obtained possession of that plot, it ought to as held that the plaintiff is not entitled to rent of that plot of land from the defendant.

4. It is also urged before us that the defendant is not in possession of other plots of land, that the utmost that can be sail is that he was in possession of 21 bighas only. The Munsif deals with it and says that he is not prepared to accept the statement of the defendant in that respect. He comes to a definite finding with regard to the plot, which we have dealt with. This does not seam to call for a remand having regard to the finding arrived at by the Munsif.


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