Skip to content


AlimaddIn Vs. AinaddIn Majumdar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in38Ind.Cas.534
AppellantAlimaddin
RespondentAinaddIn Majumdar
Cases ReferredRam Mohan Pal v. Sheikh Kachu
Excerpt:
evidence act (i of 1872), section 116 - estoppel--lessee from co-sharer landlord, whether can deny sole right of lessor--bengal tenancy act (viii b.c. of 1885), section 22--landlord and tenant--occupancy holding purchased by co-sharer landlord--lease--lessee, position of. - .....under-raiyat who held the property on a lease for seven years, the term of which had expired. the learned judge of the lower appellate court in reversing the judgment of the munsif found that the defendant was a raiyat and that his term had expired, and that, therefore, he was liable to ejectment.2. the points raised in this appeal are two. first of all it is said that the plaintiff is hot a raiyat but that he has got the interest of a permanent tenure-holder. it appears from the facts found that the plaintiff along with others owns the tenure. the plaintiff himself bought up the raiyati interest in this holding. he then underlet it by this registered lease to the defendant for seven years. it is said that, under section 22 of the bengal tenancy act, the plaintiff cannot be a raiyat in.....
Judgment:

Fletcher, J.

1. This is an appeal from a decision of the learned Additional District Judge of Tipperah, dated the 10th December 1914, reversing the decision of the Munsif of Comillah. The suit was brought by the plaintiff for ejectment of the defendant, the plaintiff claiming that he was a raiyat and the defendant was an under-raiyat who held the property on a lease for seven years, the term of which had expired. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court in reversing the judgment of the Munsif found that the defendant was a raiyat and that his term had expired, and that, therefore, he was liable to ejectment.

2. The points raised in this appeal are two. First of all it is said that the plaintiff is hot a raiyat but that He has got the interest of a permanent tenure-holder. It appears from the facts found that the plaintiff along with others owns the tenure. The plaintiff himself bought up the raiyati interest in this holding. He then underlet it by this registered lease to the defendant for seven years. It is said that, under Section 22 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, the plaintiff cannot be a raiyat in these circumstances. This case is covered by the law before, it was amended by Act I of 1908 of the Eastern Bengal and Assam Council. Under the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ram Mohan Pal v. Sheikh Kachu 32 C. 386 : 9 C.W.N. 249 : 1 C.L.J. 1 it is clear that the position of the defendant was that of an under-raiyat.

3. The second point raised was that the plaintiff was not the sole landlord. The learned Judge in the Court of Appeal below held that, having regard to the fact that the lease in favour of the defendant had been executed by the plaintiff alone and that the defendant had been inducted on the land by the plaintiff, it was not open to the defendant, having regard to the provisions of Section 116 ' of the Indian Evidence Act, to say that the plaintiff was not in fact the landlord of the defendant. With that view, I agree.

4. The present appeal, therefore, fails and must be dismissed with costs.

Richardson, J.

5. I agree.


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