Skip to content


Prohlad Chandra Manna Vs. Kshirode Chandra Jana and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in163Ind.Cas.696
AppellantProhlad Chandra Manna
RespondentKshirode Chandra Jana and ors.
Cases ReferredAdhar Chandra Saha v. Gour Chandra Saha
Excerpt:
bengal tenancy act (viii of 1885), section 26(f) - landlord's application for pre-emption--co-shares, if necessary parties--deed of transfer and notice of transfer mentioning applicant landlord as sole landlord--transferee, if estopped from raising plea that there are other co-sharers--estoppel. - .....26(f) of the bengal tenancy act as being not maintainable on the ground that 1 he heirs of one haru manna have not been impleaded as co-sharer landlords. the learned munsif has found on the evidence that although by amicable arrangement rent is realised by the petitioner alone, the leirs of haru manna are, in fact, the co-sharer landlords. this finding cannot be interfered within this rule. but it is contended for the petitioner that the objection as to non-joinder of haru manna's heirs cannot be raised by the opposite party who is the transferee from the tenants, because in the deed of transfer itself the petitioner is described as the sole landlord and the notice of transfer was also given to the petitioner as the sole landlord. it is contended that in these circumstances the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

S.K. Ghose, J.

1. This Rule is directed against an order dismissing an application for pre-emption under Section 26(F) of the Bengal Tenancy Act as being not maintainable on the ground that 1 he heirs of one Haru Manna have not been impleaded as co-sharer landlords. The learned Munsif has found on the evidence that although by amicable arrangement rent is realised by the petitioner alone, the Leirs of Haru Manna are, in fact, the co-sharer landlords. This finding cannot be interfered within this Rule. But it is contended for the petitioner that the objection as to non-joinder of Haru Manna's heirs cannot be raised by the opposite party who is the transferee from the tenants, because in the deed of transfer itself the petitioner is described as the sole landlord and the notice of transfer was also given to the petitioner as the sole landlord. It is contended that in these circumstances the opposite party transferee is estopped from raising the point that the petitioner is not the sole landlord. But the finding is that as a matter of fact the petitioner is not the sole landlord and so the title that exists that in the co-sharers, the heirs of Haru Manna cannot pass by a mere statement on the part of the vendor tenant. Moreover, it is not the case that by reason of this statement the position of the petitioner or that of any of the co-sharer landlords had been affected. In an application for pre-emption under Section 26 (F) of the Bengal Tenancy Act, it is for the applying landlord to make his co-sharers parties. I consider, therefore, that the objection raised on the plea of estoppel as against the transferee has no force. See also the decision in the case of, Adhar Chandra Saha v. Gour Chandra Saha : AIR1935Cal153 .

2. The Rule will, therefore, stand discharged with costs; hearing-fee is assessed at one gold mohur.


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