Skip to content


Jarman Gomez Vs. Ram Kumar Kaibarta and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1934Cal127
AppellantJarman Gomez
RespondentRam Kumar Kaibarta and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....in the tenancy.2. the question that next arises for consideration is, whether one of the co-sharer landlords could get a decree for ejectment of the defendants in view of the fact that the other co-sharer landlords did not join him as plaintiffs in the suit. in our judgment the proper course to follow is to hold that the plaintiff who had made the co-sharer landlords proforma defendants in the suit for ejectment, was entitled to get a decree for recovery of possession of the property in suit to the extent of his share jointly with the pro forma defendants in the suit. in view of the conclusion we have arrived at, the decision and decree passed by the court of appeal below are modified in the manner following: the plaintiff-appellant will recover possession of the jalkar in suit.....
Judgment:

1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of khas possession, as also for arrears of rent and mesne profits. The claim for possession, as made in the suit, was resisted by the contesting defendants. The case for the defendants was that no notice had been served upon them. The trial Court on the materials before it passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff, and directed that khas possession be delivered to the plaintiff. On appeal the decision of the trial Court was reversed. The learned Subordinate Judge observed that though the notice was served at the instance of all the landlords only one of them had evinced a desire to eject the tenants and that ejectment could not be allowed, unless the whole body of landlords joined in bringing the suit, and further that service of notice was one thing, and the determination to follow it up by a regular suit was another thing. In the above view of the case the prayer for ejectment of the defendants was disallowed by the Court of appeal below. It appears to us that the tenancy was effectively determined after notice to the tenants had been given on behalf of the entire body of landlords interested in the tenancy.

2. The question that next arises for consideration is, whether one of the co-sharer landlords could get a decree for ejectment of the defendants in view of the fact that the other co-sharer landlords did not join him as plaintiffs in the suit. In our judgment the proper course to follow is to hold that the plaintiff who had made the co-sharer landlords proforma defendants in the suit for ejectment, was entitled to get a decree for recovery of possession of the property in suit to the extent of his share jointly with the pro forma defendants in the suit. In view of the conclusion we have arrived at, the decision and decree passed by the Court of appeal below are modified in the manner following: The plaintiff-appellant will recover possession of the Jalkar in suit jointly with the co-sharer landlords, pro forma defendants in the suit. The parties will bear their own costs in this Court and in the Courts below.


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