Skip to content


Kripa Sindhu Mukherjee and ors. Vs. Surendra Nath Banerjee and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1919Cal250,51Ind.Cas.285
AppellantKripa Sindhu Mukherjee and ors.
RespondentSurendra Nath Banerjee and ors.
Cases ReferredChandra Sakai v. Kalli Prosanno Chuckerbutty
Excerpt:
bengal tenancy act (viii of 1885), section 161 - salc of portion of non-transferable occupancy holding, whether incumbrance--exchange, whether sale. - .....of a non-transferable occupancy holding is an encumbrance within the meaning of section 161 of the bengal tenancy act. the decisions of this court seem to be quite clear that it is not. the ruling in the case of abdul rahman chowdhuri v. ahmadar rahman 31 ind. cas. 554 ; 43 c. 558 ; 19 c.w.n. 1217 ; 22 c.l.j. 356 is exactly in point. a similar view has been taken in the high court of patna in the case of rameshwar singh v. raghunandan khawas 38 ind. cas. 337 ; 1 p.l.j. 403 ; 2 p.h.w. 364. on section 86 of the bengal tenancy act, there is also a decision of this court. tamizuddin khan v. khoda nawaz khan 5 ind. cas. 116 ; 14 c.w.n. 229 ; 11 c.l.j. 16 which shows that the sale of a portion of a nontransferable occupancy holding is not an encumbrance within the meaning of section 86,.....
Judgment:

Ernest Fletcher, J.

1. The only question involved in this appeal is whether the transfer of a portion of a non-transferable occupancy holding is an encumbrance within the meaning of Section 161 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The decisions of this Court seem to be quite clear that it is not. The ruling in the case of Abdul Rahman Chowdhuri v. Ahmadar Rahman 31 Ind. Cas. 554 ; 43 C. 558 ; 19 C.W.N. 1217 ; 22 C.L.J. 356 is exactly in point. A similar view has been taken in the High Court of Patna in the case of Rameshwar Singh v. Raghunandan Khawas 38 Ind. Cas. 337 ; 1 P.L.J. 403 ; 2 P.H.W. 364. On Section 86 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, there is also a decision of this Court. Tamizuddin Khan v. Khoda Nawaz Khan 5 Ind. Cas. 116 ; 14 C.W.N. 229 ; 11 C.L.J. 16 which shows that the sale of a portion of a nontransferable occupancy holding is not an encumbrance within the meaning of Section 86, Sub-sections (6) and (7), of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The only difficulty that is raised is by the decision in Chandra Sakai v. Kalli Prosanno Ghuckerbutty 23 C. 254 ; 12 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 170. That is a case of exchange, where it was held that an exchange was not an encumbrance within the meaning of Section 161 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Whether we agree with that decision or not, it is quite dear that an exchange is not for all purposes a sale, and the case has been distinguished already in the case of Abdul Rahman Chowdhuri v. Ahmadar Rahman 31 Ind. Cas. 554 ; 43 C. 558 ; 19 C.W.N. 1217 ; 22 C.L.J. 356 already referred to, on the ground that an exchange is not a sale. There may be a difficulty in principle in the case of an exchange and it may be that on some subsequent date it may be necessary to review the judgment in Chandra Sakai v. Kalli Prosanno Chuckerbutty 23 C. 254 ; 12 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 170. But on the question of sale, it seems to me that the authorities are clear and conclusive, namely, that the sale of a portion of a non-transferable occupancy holding is net an encumbrance within the meaning of Section 161 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. In that view, the present appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs.

Cuming, J.

2. I agree.


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