Skip to content


Bipro Dass Paul Chowdhury Vs. Surendra Nath Basu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in43Ind.Cas.467
AppellantBipro Dass Paul Chowdhury;mohendra Nath Bose and ors.
RespondentSurendra Nath Basu and ors.;manmotho Paul Chowdhury and ors.
Cases ReferredDayamoyi v. Ananda Mohan Roy
Excerpt:
bengal tenancy act (viii of 1835), section 22(2) - co-sharer landlord purchasing non-transferable occupancy holding, whether entitled to exclusive possession. - .....possession as against his co-sharer landlords. in the appeal reliance has been placed on the full bench decision reported as bam mohan pal v. sheikh kachu 9 c.w.n. 249 : 32 c. 386 : 1 c.l.j. 1 and also upon the language of section 22(2). now clearly the case reported as bam mohan pal v. sheikh kachu 9 c.w.n. 249 : 32 c. 386 : 1 c.l.j. 1 does not affect the present question, for in that case the holding in question was a transferable and not a nontransferable occupancy holding. the result is that that full bench case in no way affects or impairs the authority of the prior decision reported as girish chandra chowdhry v. kedar chandra 27 c. 473 : 4 c.w.n. 569 : 14 ind. dec. (n.s.) 311. this has already been pointed out in the later case of lakhi kant das v balabhadra prosad das 25 ind......
Judgment:

1. In these three appeals the only question for our consideration is whether by virtue of the provisions of Section 22(2) of the Bengal Tenancy Act as amended in 1907, a co-sharer landlord who has purchased a un-transferable occupancy holding in execution of a decree for the rent of his share is entitled to retain exclusive possession as against his co-sharer landlords. In the appeal reliance has been placed on the Full Bench decision reported as Bam Mohan Pal v. Sheikh Kachu 9 C.W.N. 249 : 32 C. 386 : 1 C.L.J. 1 and also upon the language of Section 22(2). Now clearly the case reported as Bam Mohan pal v. Sheikh kachu 9 C.W.N. 249 : 32 C. 386 : 1 C.L.J. 1 does not affect the present question, for in that case the holding in question was a transferable and not a nontransferable occupancy holding. The result is that that Full Bench case in no way affects or impairs the authority of the prior decision reported as Girish Chandra Chowdhry v. Kedar Chandra 27 C. 473 : 4 C.W.N. 569 : 14 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 311. This has already been pointed out in the later case of Lakhi Kant Das v Balabhadra Prosad Das 25 Ind. Cas. 546 : 19 C.L.J. 400. There it has been clearly held that Section 22(2) applies only to a case in which a transferable occupancy holding is the subject-matter of the purohase. Here as we have said the holding is a nontransferable holding, and we may point out that in so far as the question whether Section 22(2) applies only to transferable or both to transferable and non transferable holdings, the language of the section has not been altered by the amendment made in 1907. In our view also the Full Bench decision in the case of Dayamoyi v. Ananda Mohan Roy 27 Ind Cas 61 : 42 C. 172 : 18 C.W.N. 971 : 20 C.L.J. 52, in so far as it specifies the cases in which the transfers of holdings are operative against the landlord, in fact supports the case for the plaintiffs co-sharers.

2. In this view and on the authority of the cases we have cited Appeal No. 270 is dismissed and Appeals Nos. 2303 and 2b78 are decreed with costs in each case.


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