Skip to content


Ganesh Chandra Mohajan and ors. Vs. Srimati Beraja Sundari and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in46Ind.Cas.975
AppellantGanesh Chandra Mohajan and ors.
RespondentSrimati Beraja Sundari and ors.
Excerpt:
bengal tenancy act (viii b.g. of 1885), schedule iii, article 3 - suit by raiyat to recover possession of holding from auction-purchaser--limitation applicable. - .....recover possession on the allegation that the plaintiffs had a raiyati interest in the land. the plaintiffs alleged that they were raiyats under the hagaris and that they and their predecessors had been in possession for more than forty years and that in 1913 the defendants dispossessed them. the defence was that the defendants purchased the property in execution of a rent decree in august 1912. they also alleged that the present suit was barred by article 3 of schedule iii of the bengal tenancy act. it is quite clear that the suit is not barred. in this case, it is found that the ouster of the plaintiffs was not by the landlord. the other cases cited were cases in which the real person ousting the tenant was the landlord acting in collusion with other persons. what is found in this.....
Judgment:

1. This is an appeal by the defendants against the decision of the learned Additional District Judge of Chittagong, dated the 15th April 1916, affirming the decision of the Munsif at South Rauzan. The suit was brought to recover possession on the allegation that the plaintiffs had a raiyati interest in the land. The plaintiffs alleged that they were raiyats under the Hagaris and that they and their predecessors had been in possession for more than forty years and that in 1913 the defendants dispossessed them. The defence was that the defendants purchased the property in execution of a rent decree in August 1912. They also alleged that the present suit was barred by Article 3 of Schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act. It is quite clear that the suit is not barred. In this case, it is found that the ouster of the plaintiffs was not by the landlord. The other cases cited were cases in which the real person ousting the tenant was the landlord acting in collusion with other persons. What is found in this case is that the defendants purchased in execution of a rent decree. That finding merely will not entitle them to the possession of the property. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.


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