Skip to content


Rajani Kanta Ghosh Vs. Lala Rout and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1919Cal984(1),47Ind.Cas.298
AppellantRajani Kanta Ghosh
RespondentLala Rout and ors.
Excerpt:
landlord and tenant - under-raiyati interest, whether transferable--purchaser of portion of under-raiyat, rights of. - .....and, therefore, there could not be a declaration of title in this case. it is quite dear that the learned judge was right. the interest of an under-raiyat is clearly non-transferable. how can the plaintiff by a document say that he has got a transfer of a portion thereof? it may be that the possession of the plaintiff, if he had been in possession, was lawful and not illegal and, if he had his possession disturbed, then he might have sued under the provisions of section 9 of the specific belief act. but that is not the case here. in the present case, the facts are these: the landlord is in peaceful possession of this land and the plaintiff having no title thereto asks for a declaration of title and relief consequent thereupon. it is quite clear that the learned judge of the lower.....
Judgment:

1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Midnapore, dated the 10th August 1916, reversing the decision of the Munsif of the same place. Th9 plaintiff sued for declaration of title and for possession as a transferee of a portion of a non-transferable under-raiyati interest. The Judge held that he got no title, and, therefore, there could not be a declaration of title in this case. It is quite dear that the learned Judge was right. The interest of an under-raiyat is clearly non-transferable. How can the plaintiff by a document say that he has got a transfer of a portion thereof? It may be that the possession of the plaintiff, if he had been in possession, was lawful and not illegal and, if he had his possession disturbed, then he might have sued under the provisions of Section 9 of the Specific Belief Act. But that is not the case here. In the present case, the facts are these: The landlord is in peaceful possession of this land and the plaintiff having no title thereto asks for a declaration of title and relief consequent thereupon. It is quite clear that the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court was right in holding that, in these circumstances, the plaintiff was not entitled to get the reliefs asked for. The present appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs.


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