Skip to content


Gagan Chandra Manna and anr. Vs. Nafar Chandra Ghose and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in64Ind.Cas.124
AppellantGagan Chandra Manna and anr.
RespondentNafar Chandra Ghose and ors.
Cases ReferredArjun Das v. Gunendra Nath
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 47 - occupancy holding, non-transferable, purchaser of, whether can take objection to execution proceedings against original tenants--marfatdari rent-receipt, effect of. - .....arises is whether the petitioners in those proceedings had locus standi under section 47, code of civil procedure. both the lower courts have concurrently found that they had such locus standi. the learned judge of the lower appellate court has found that the objectors have been for a long time paying rent marfat to the zemindar and he holds, on this finding, that the case is clearly governed by the ruling in arjun das v. gunendra nath 27 ind. cas. 294 : 18 c.w.n. 1266 : 20 c.l.j. 341. it is contended on behalf of the appellants that that case is distinguishable in that it is nowhere stated that the petitioner in that case was paying rent as marfatdar. what was there found was that the rent was received from the petitioner after his purchase, though his name was not formally registered.....
Judgment:

1. This appeal arises out of an order in an execution proceeding. On the application of the purchasers of a non-transferable occupancy holding, the execution proceedings have been quashed. The only point of law that arises is whether the petitioners in those proceedings had locus standi Under Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure. Both the lower Courts have concurrently found that they had such locus standi. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has found that the objectors have been for a long time paying rent marfat to the Zemindar and he holds, on this finding, that the case is clearly governed by the ruling in Arjun Das v. Gunendra Nath 27 Ind. Cas. 294 : 18 C.W.N. 1266 : 20 C.L.J. 341. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that that case is distinguishable in that it is nowhere stated that the petitioner in that case was paying rent as marfatdar. What was there found was that the rent was received from the petitioner after his purchase, though his name was not formally registered as tenant. In our opinion, no distinction can be drawn' between these cases. If, in the other case, rent was received from the purchaser though he was not recognized, we cannot believe that he would have been given rent receipts in his own name. When purchasers are not recognized, our experience shows that rent-receipts are generally given to them in the names of the original tenants or, in other words, they are given to them as marfatdars. From the Mnnsif's judgment it appears that the respondents have been paying rent in this way since 1879, and having done so and their rent having been accepted by the Zemindar, the appellants cannot take advantage of the use of the word marfat to resist their claim to take objection Under Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure. We accordingly dismiss this appeal. As no one appears for the respondents, we make no order as to costs.


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