Skip to content


The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Lakhi NaraIn Das and ors. and - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1919Cal1001,46Ind.Cas.899
AppellantThe Secretary of State for India in Council
RespondentLakhi NaraIn Das and ors. and ;ganga NaraIn Bhunia and ors.
Cases ReferredSecretary of State v. Gangadhar Nanda
Excerpt:
bengal tenancy act (viii b.c. of 1885), section 104h, suit under - limitation--exclusion of time during which notice given to secretary of state was current--civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 80. - .....in these cases, the suits were clearly brought beyond that time and the ground on which the learned judge of the lower appellate court has held that these suits were in time is that, in his view, the plaintiffs were entitled to exclude the two months, during which the notices that were served under section 80 of the code of civil procedure were current, from the six months mentioned in section 104h of the bengal tenancy act. that view is clearly wrong as the decisions of this court show. we may refer in particular to the decision of this court in the case of secretary of state v. gangadhar nanda 45 ind. cas. 228 : 27 c.l.j. 374.2. as regards the lands of mouzah naruabila, one of the properties in appeal no. 964, the suit was brought in time. this appeal must, therefore, stand.....
Judgment:

NOS. 641 AND 964 OF 1916

1. Appeal No. 641 and Appeal No. 964, in so far as they relate to the lands of Mouzahs Madhabila and Haturia Delbar, must be allowed. The suits relating to these lands were brought under the provisions of Section 104H of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The time limited for bringing such a suit is by the terms of the section six months from the date of the publication of the Record of Rights. In these cases, the suits were clearly brought beyond that time and the ground on which the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has held that these suits were in time is that, in his view, the plaintiffs were entitled to exclude the two months, during which the notices that were served under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure were current, from the six months mentioned in Section 104H of the Bengal Tenancy Act. That view is clearly wrong as the decisions of this Court show. We may refer in particular to the decision of this Court in the case of Secretary of State v. Gangadhar Nanda 45 Ind. Cas. 228 : 27 C.L.J. 374.

2. As regards the lands of Mouzah Naruabila, one of the properties in Appeal No. 964, the suit was brought in time. This appeal must, therefore, stand dismissed as regards that Mouzah.

3. In the result, Appeal No. 641 is allowed, Appeal No. 964 in so far as it relates to Mouzahs Madhabila and Haturia Delbar must also be allowed; but in so far as the said Appeal No. 964 relates to Mouzah Narubila, it must be dismissed. We make no order as to costs in Appeal No. 964 either in this Court or in the Court below. In Appeal No. 641, the appellant will get costs in this Court as well as in the Courts below.

NOS. 963, 965, 966 AND 967 OF 1916.

4. These appeals are dismissed on the clear findings of fact made by the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court. The respondents in the appeals in which they have appeared will get their costs.

5. Cross-objections were filed by the respondents in Appeals Nos. 966 and 967. Those respondents considered that the very clear judgment of the learned District Judge fixing the fair and equitable rent of the land at 12 annas a bigha meant that the rent had got to be increased from the old rate by 12 annas a bigha. It means nothing of the sort. It means what it says. The cross-objections are, therefore, dismissed with costs.


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