Skip to content


Nilmoni Guntia Vs. Jogendra Guntia - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in6Ind.Cas.389
AppellantNilmoni Guntia
RespondentJogendra Guntia
Cases ReferredGopal Ram Krishna. v. Govind Pandurang Rangari
Excerpt:
central provinces tenancy act (ix of 1898), section 61, clause (2) - central provinces land revenue act (xviii of 1881), sections 4 clause (11), 138--lumbardar--right of lumbarbar to sue alone for ejectment of a trespasser. - .....the lower appellate court is wrong in holding that the lumbardar is not alone entitled to bring a suit to eject the defendant. it has been argued that, as the lumbardar is the agent for the purpose of representing the body of the proprietors in their dealings with the government and as, for that purpose, he has to collect the rents, therefore, he must be held to be, as an agent on behalf of the other co-sharers, entitled to bring a suit for ejectment. reliance has also been placed on a judgment of the judicial commissioner of the central provinces in the case of ram ratan, ram gopal v. hira laxman 5 c.p.l.r. 47 to support the view that the lumbardar must be looked upon as the landlord whose consent under section 61 clause (2) of the central provinces tenancy act of 1898 is necessary to.....
Judgment:

1. In support of this appeal it has first been argued that the lower appellate Court is wrong in holding that the lumbardar is not alone entitled to bring a suit to eject the defendant. It has been argued that, as the lumbardar is the agent for the purpose of representing the body of the proprietors in their dealings with the Government and as, for that purpose, he has to collect the rents, therefore, he must be held to be, as an agent on behalf of the other co-sharers, entitled to bring a suit for ejectment. Reliance has also been placed on a judgment of the Judicial Commissioner of the Central Provinces in the case of Ram Ratan, Ram Gopal v. Hira Laxman 5 C.P.L.R. 47 to support the view that the lumbardar must be looked upon as the landlord whose consent under Section 61 Clause (2) of the Central Provinces Tenancy Act of 1898 is necessary to the validity of a transfer of property and that, as he can by his consent make a transfer valid, so if he withholds his consent, he is entitled, under the law, to sue to eject a transferee. In our opinion these contentions cannot be sustained. No. doubt, a lumbardar represents the body of co-sharers in their dealings with Government for certain purposes, but the duties of a lumbardar are explained in Section 138 of the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act. That section does not give to the lumbardar power to eject trespassers from lands or to eject tenants. Suction 4, Clause (11) of tlie same Act defines a lumbardar as a person appointed in the manner prescribed by the Act to represent the proprietary body of a mahal in its relations with Government '. The institution of a suit for ejectment,, against a purchaser is not one of the duties which the lumbardar can be held to have to perform as representing the co-sharers in their relations with Government. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the plaintiff lumbardar cannot succeed in the present suit because he being only one of several co-sharer landlords cannot alone sue to eject the defendant as a trespasser. This view has been accepted by the Judicial Commissioner of the Central Provinces in the case of Gopal Ram Krishna. v. Govind Pandurang Rangari 13 C.P.L.R. 113. It is true that, in that case, the persons who brought the suit were co-sharers in a village and they were not joined by the lumbardar as a plaintiff and the learned Judge, in holding that those persons were not empowered under the law to bring the suit, accepted the principle which obtains under the Bengal Tenancy Act and other Tenancy Acts that where an act has to be done by a landlord and there are several landlords of the village, that act can only be done by all those several landlords acting in concert, and cannot be done by one or two of their members. This is the view which the lower appellate Court has adopted in dealing with the present case. In our opinion it is correct. It has, however, been argued that, even if the lumbardar could not sue to eject the defendant from the entire holding, still he was entitled to a decree for joint possession with the defendant. We think that that, argument is not sound. In the first place, the suit was instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant as a trespasser and he certainly could not be granted a decree for joint possession with a trespasser and secondly, as in the present case, the other co-sharers are not parties to the suit and as the question cannot be considered and determined whether they are consenting parties to the transfer, it would be manifestly undesirable and impossible that a decree should be granted to the plaintiff for joint possession with the defendant as tenants. We think that the view takenby the lower appellate Court is correct and that it has rightly interpreted the provisions of the law as laid down in the Central Provinces Tenancy Act. We, therefore, confirm the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court and dismiss the appeal with costs.


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