Skip to content


Maharaja Birendra Kisore Manikya Bahadur Vs. Bharat Chandra Sinha and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in30Ind.Cas.910
AppellantMaharaja Birendra Kisore Manikya Bahadur
RespondentBharat Chandra Sinha and ors.
Excerpt:
bengal land revenue assessment (resumed lands) regulation (ii of 1819) - bengal land revenue resumption act (vii of 1862)--decree ordering liability to rent effect of. - .....decree in what has been termed a resumption suit. the argument is that this decree established the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and both the defendants. the decree is translated and we have also had the advantage of having the original vernacular decree brought to our notice. i agree with the lower court that the decree cannot be accepted as establishing the relationship of landlord and tenant. the suit was one instituted under regulation ii of 1819 and subsequently transferred to the civil court under bengal act vii of 1862 and it is at least as reasonable to regard it as a suit dealing with revenue as a suit dealing with rent. moreover, it was the predecessor of defendant no. 2 that was a party to that suit, and defendant no. 2 is now treated as a.....
Judgment:

Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.

1. This second appeal arises out of a suit whereby the plaintiff seeks against two defendants khas possession, with an alternative prayer that if the Court should think that defendant No. 1 could not be ejected from the land, then the plaintiff might be declared entitled to rent from him. These prayers are based upon allegations in the plaint, which set up a title in the plaintiff and proceed to state that defendant No. 1 has legally no right to hold and retain possession of the land and that both the defendants are mere trespassers. Both the lower Courts have decided against the plaintiff, holding that the suit is barred by limitation. In my opinion, that decision is correct. It, in effect, is in accordance with our determination in the previous appeals. But it is contended that there is a distinction in this case, which arises out of a decree in what has been termed a resumption suit. The argument is that this decree established the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and both the defendants. The decree is translated and we have also had the advantage of having the original vernacular decree brought to our notice. I agree with the lower Court that the decree cannot be accepted as establishing the relationship of landlord and tenant. The suit was one instituted under Regulation II of 1819 and subsequently transferred to the Civil Court under Bengal Act VII of 1862 and it is at least as reasonable to regard it as a suit dealing with revenue as a suit dealing with rent. Moreover, it was the predecessor of defendant No. 2 that was a party to that suit, and defendant No. 2 is now treated as a trespasser. I, therefore, hold that the suit must fail and would confirm the decree of the lower Appellate Court with costs.

Mookerjee, J.

2. I agree

Beachcroft, J.

3. I agree.


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