Skip to content


Byamkesh Chuckerbutty Vs. Uday Chand Parui and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in43Ind.Cas.737
AppellantByamkesh Chuckerbutty
RespondentUday Chand Parui and anr.
Cases ReferredMrituynjoy v. Bhola Nath Datta
Excerpt:
bengal tenancy act (viii b.c. of 1885) as amended by act i of 1907, schedule iii, part iii, article 6, applicability, of--execution of decree obtained by co-sharer-landlord--limitation. - .....by a co-sharer-landlord against a tenant in 1907 after the passing of bengal act i of that year the question for our determination is whether the three years' rule set out in the article to which we have referred, or the twelve years' rule of limitation, that is, the general rule, is applicable. in three cases it has been held that the three years rule applies, those three cases being thakomoni dasi v. mohendra nath dey sarkar 3 ind. cas. 389 : 10 c.l.j. 463, mrituynjoy v. bhola nath datta 20 ind. cas. 833 : 18 c.l.j. 81, and an unreported case, miscellaneous appeal no. 562 of 1912. we agree in the view taken in those cases and that being so, we dismiss this appeal. no one appearing for the respondents we make no order as to costs.
Judgment:

1. This appeal is against an order made by the Subordinate Judge of Jessore by which he held that a certain decree was barred by the three years' rule of limitation to be found in Schedule III, Part III, Article 6, of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The decree was one for a sum pot exceeding Rs. 500 and was obtained by a co-sharer-landlord against a tenant in 1907 after the passing of Bengal Act I of that year The question for our determination is whether the three years' rule set out in the Article to which we have referred, or the twelve years' rule of limitation, that is, the general rule, is applicable. In three cases it has been held that the three years rule applies, those three cases being Thakomoni Dasi v. Mohendra Nath Dey Sarkar 3 Ind. Cas. 389 : 10 C.L.J. 463, Mrituynjoy v. Bhola Nath Datta 20 Ind. Cas. 833 : 18 C.L.J. 81, and an unreported case, Miscellaneous Appeal No. 562 of 1912. We agree in the view taken in those cases and that being so, we dismiss this appeal. No one appearing for the respondents we make no order as to costs.


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