Skip to content


Girish Chandra Mitra Vs. Giribala Debi, Widow of Adya Charan Mukhopadhya and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in45Ind.Cas.937
AppellantGirish Chandra Mitra
RespondentGiribala Debi, Widow of Adya Charan Mukhopadhya and ors.
Excerpt:
bengal tenancy act (viii of 1885 b.c.), schedule iii, article 3 - dispossession of tenant by landlord--limitation for suit to recover possession of holding--recognition of ryot's interest in holding, effect of. - .....schedule 111 to the bengal tenancy act. it is said that that is not so, because in this case the landlords recognized the interest of the plaintiff as being a subsisting interest, and the manner in which it is said that the landlords recognized the interest of the plaintiff is this: that, in a mortgage suit by one rajubala, another of the co-sharer landlords, the court recognized that the plaintiff had a right to redeem the property. that is not a recognition by the landlord. you may call it a recognition by the judge. it is not suggested that a recognition by the judge extends the period of limitation under the provisions of the bengal tenancy act. the case is clearly concluded by the finding of fact that the plaintiff, even if he had the right as a tenant, was out of time in bringing.....
Judgment:

1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned District Judge of Birbhum dated the 16th February 1916 reversing the decision of the Munsif at Sari. The plaintiff sued to recover possession on the ground that he had the right as a tenant. The story of the title is a complicated one. Amongst the defendants-landlords are the defendants Nos. 2 and H, and it has been found as a fact in this case that the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 dispossessed the plaintiff more than two years prior to the institution of the suit. Therefore, the suit is barred by limitation under Article 3 of Schedule 111 to the Bengal Tenancy Act. It is said that that is not so, because in this case the landlords recognized the interest of the plaintiff as being a subsisting interest, and the manner in which it is said that the landlords recognized the interest of the plaintiff is this: That, in a mortgage suit by one Rajubala, another of the co-sharer landlords, the Court recognized that the plaintiff had a right to redeem the property. That is not a recognition by the landlord. You may call it a recognition by the Judge. It is not suggested that a recognition by the Judge extends the period of limitation under the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The case is clearly concluded by the finding of fact that the plaintiff, even if he had the right as a tenant, was out of time in bringing the preaent action. The present appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs. The two sets of respondents who have appeared are entitled each to a separate set of costs.


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