Skip to content


Sheikh Sanoo and anr. Vs. Muhammad Sabed - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in25Ind.Cas.539
AppellantSheikh Sanoo and anr.
RespondentMuhammad Sabed
Excerpt:
ejectment - purchase of portion of holding--vendor not authorised to sell, whole--landlord recognising sale, effect of. - .....it on the 6th of november 1906 and that subsequently he got his purchase recognized by the superior landlord on the 14th of november 1907. on the 17th of december 1906, the defendants purchased a half share of the land from the co-sharer of the vendor of the plaintiff. it has been found by all the courts below that the vendor of the plaintiff was not the sole owner and that consequently the transfer in favour of the plaintiff, if operative at all, operated to the extent of the half share. but the plaintiff relies upon recognition by the superior landlord. in our opinion it is impossible for the plaintiff to succeed on the strength of this recognition. it is plain from the first and second paragraphs of the plaint that the land did not constitute the entire holding of mathura nath.....
Judgment:

1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title to and recovery of possession of land.

2. The plaintiff stated in the plaint that the land in dispute was included in a jote of one Mathura Nath Chowdhry, that he had purchased it on the 6th of November 1906 and that subsequently he got his purchase recognized by the superior landlord on the 14th of November 1907. On the 17th of December 1906, the defendants purchased a half share of the land from the co-sharer of the vendor of the plaintiff. It has been found by all the Courts below that the vendor of the plaintiff was not the sole owner and that consequently the transfer in favour of the plaintiff, if operative at all, operated to the extent of the half share. But the plaintiff relies upon recognition by the superior landlord. In our opinion it is impossible for the plaintiff to succeed on the strength of this recognition. It is plain from the first and second paragraphs of the plaint that the land did not constitute the entire holding of Mathura Nath Chowdhry but formed only a part thereof. Consequently when this portion was transferred, it was not competent to the landlord to recognize the plaintiff to the detriment of the defendant. If the entire holding had been abandoned, the position of the parties might have been different.

3. The result, therefore, is that this appeal must be allowed, the decree of Mr. Justice Coxe set aside and that of the Subordinate Judge restored. This order will carry costs of both the appeals in this Court.


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