Skip to content


Golapjan Bibi Wife of Sheikh Ujir Mamud Alias Jamir Mamud Vs. Sheikh Dil Mamud and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in54Ind.Cas.394
AppellantGolapjan Bibi Wife of Sheikh Ujir Mamud Alias Jamir Mamud
RespondentSheikh Dil Mamud and ors.
Excerpt:
landlord and tenant - occupancy holding, non-transferable--transfer by tenant in favour of heir without giving up possession--landlord, right of, re-entry of. - .....holding? the landlord's right of re-entry is supposed to have arisen by reason of abdul, the tenant, having executed two documents, one in favour of his wife and the other in favour of his daughter. the facts found were these: that notwithstanding these two documents, abdul remained on the holding and resided at the house erected on a portion thereof down to the date of his death. he died on this holding. at that time his wife and daughter were living with him and, therefore, immediately on abdul's death, his wife and daughter became entitled to the property as his heirs and the mere fact that he purported to give them two invalid documents during his lifetime did not alter the character of their possession. their possession was a lawful possession and one which the landlord was not.....
Judgment:

Ernest Fletcher, J.

1. I think in this case the conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court is correct, although all the reasons that he has given may not appear to be sound. The question turns on this : did the landlord acquire a right of re-entry to a non transferable occupancy holding? The landlord's right of re-entry is supposed to have arisen by reason of Abdul, the tenant, having executed two documents, one in favour of his wife and the other in favour of his daughter. The facts found were these: That notwithstanding these two documents, Abdul remained on the holding and resided at the house erected on a portion thereof down to the date of his death. He died on this holding. At that time his wife and daughter were living with him and, therefore, immediately on Abdul's death, his wife and daughter became entitled to the property as his heirs and the mere fact that he purported to give them two invalid documents during his lifetime did not alter the character of their possession. Their possession was a lawful possession and one which the landlord was not entitled to disturb. I think the decision arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge is correct. The present appeal, therefore, fails and must be dismissed with costs.

Cuming, J.

2. I agree.


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