Skip to content


Jogai ChamarIn Vs. Atul Krishna Laha and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Case NumberA.F.A.O. No. 47 of 1952
Judge
Reported inAIR1953Cal770,57CWN506
ActsTenancy Law; ;Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 - Sections 28 and 29; ;Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1953 - Section 1
AppellantJogai Chamarin
RespondentAtul Krishna Laha and ors.
Appellant AdvocateSatindra Nath Roy Choudhury and ;Sovendra Madhab Bose, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateJyotirindra Nath Das, Adv.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
- k.c. chunder, j.1. this is an appeal against an appellate decree of the first subordinate judge of 24-parganas affirming that of the first munsif of sealdah.2. an application was made under section 27, thika tenancy act 1949 for rescinding or varying the decree. against the order passed by the munsif, an appeal was taken to the court of the subordinate judge and the subordinate judge decided that no appeal was competent. against that an appeal as well as an alternative revisional application have been filed in this court. those were pending on 21-10-1952. in view of section 1 of the amendment act of 1953 and its proviso, it is clear that in pending proceedings the old act as amended by this amendment act of 1953 has got to be applied and shall be deemed to have application always. now as.....
Judgment:

K.C. Chunder, J.

1. This is an appeal against an appellate decree of the first subordinate Judge of 24-Parganas affirming that of the first Munsif of Sealdah.

2. An application was made under Section 27, Thika Tenancy Act 1949 for rescinding or varying the decree. Against the order passed by the Munsif, an appeal was taken to the Court of the Subordinate Judge and the Subordinate Judge decided that no appeal was competent. Against that an appeal as well as an alternative revisional application have been filed in this Court. Those were pending on 21-10-1952. In view of Section 1 of the Amendment Act of 1953 and its proviso, it is clear that in pending proceedings the old Act as amended by this Amendment Act of 1953 has got to be applied and shall be deemed to have application always. Now as far as Amendment Act is concerned, in Section 8 it says that Sections 28 and 29 of the original Act shall be omitted. The result therefore is that it is to be deemed always not to have Sections 28 and 29 as far as pending proceedings are concerned in view of the proviso to Section 1 of the Amendment Act.

3. The result therefore is that Section 28 being omitted this appeal as well as the alternative application for revision are incompetent and do not lie and these are therefore dismissed.

4. There will be no order for costs.

5. Let the records be sent down without delay.


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