Skip to content


Panchanon Choudhury and ors. Vs. Ramendra Sundar Tribedi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in37Ind.Cas.895
AppellantPanchanon Choudhury and ors.
RespondentRamendra Sundar Tribedi and ors.
Excerpt:
bengal regulation viii of 1819, sections 8, 18 - co-sharer zemindars--application for sale--notice--place of service. - .....of the notice under section 8.3. we think that the provisions of regulation viii of 1819 for the sale of putni tenures are peculiarly penal and their destructive effect upon under-tenures is proverbial. the provisions of such a regulation must be strictly complied with. section 8 of the regulation provides that, 'the zemindar shall be exclusively responsible for the observance of the forms above prescribed.'4. now, the forms above prescribed' include the notice to be served at the sudder kutchery of the zemindars. if they have several kutch ries, notice must be served upon each kutchery. so long as they choose to hold separate kutcheries, they may by contract realise rent separately. but when they have to make an application under regulation xviii; they must join and the service of.....
Judgment:

1. The defendants Nos. 1 to 6 were the zemindars of a mahal, which was let out in putni to the plaintiffs. These zemindars had three kutcheries,--the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had one kutcheri, defendants Nos. 3 to 5 had another near by, and defendant No. 6 had a third, and they used to realise the putni rent in certain proportions. They, however, joined in making an application for the sale of the putni under Regulation VIII of 1819 for arrears of rent for 1318 and the putni was sold and purchased by defendant No. 7. The plaintiffs brought a suit for setting aside the sale, and it has been held by both the Courts below that the notice required by Section 8 of the Regulation to be served on the sudder kutchery of the zemindar was served on the kutchery of defendants Nos 1 and 2, as also on the kutchery of defendant No. 6, but was not stuck up at the kutchery of defendants Nos. 3 to 5. The learned Subordinate Judge held that, as the kutchery of defendants Nos. 3 to 5 was adjacent to that of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, the service at the latter kutchery was sufficient; the learned Judge on appeal has held that it was not.

2. It is contended in second appeal before us that the learned Judge is wrong, that the only ground upon which he could set aside the sale, was that under Section 14 there was a sufficient plea for adopting such a course and that this is not necessarily connected with the service of the notice under Section 8.

3. We think that the provisions of Regulation VIII of 1819 for the sale of putni tenures are peculiarly penal and their destructive effect upon under-tenures is proverbial. The provisions of such a Regulation must be strictly complied with. Section 8 of the Regulation provides that, 'the zemindar shall be exclusively responsible for the observance of the forms above prescribed.'

4. Now, the forms above prescribed' include the notice to be served at the sudder kutchery of the zemindars. If they have several kutch ries, notice must be served upon each kutchery. So long as they choose to hold separate kutcheries, they may by contract realise rent separately. But when they have to make an application under Regulation XVIII; they must join and the service of notice at the kutchery of any individual co-sharer would not be a sufficient compliance with the provisions of the Regulation.

5. In this view of the case, we dismiss the appeal with costs.


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