Skip to content


Gopal Mollah and ors. Vs. Mafidannessa Bibi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in61Ind.Cas.200
AppellantGopal Mollah and ors.
RespondentMafidannessa Bibi and ors.
Cases ReferredAminunnisa v. Jinnat Ali
Excerpt:
landlord and tenant - under-raiyat, whether can create sub--lease--under-raiyati rights, whether transferable. - .....under-rate under jasimuddin. the plaintiff represents jasimuddin as the raiyat in respect of the land in suit, the defendant no. 5 does not resist the plaintiff's claim to eject her from the land in suit, and, therefore, it seems to us unnecessary to consider whether the surrender by defendant no. 5 was or was not a valid surrender. the question is, whether the defendants have any right to remain in the land. it has been held that the rights of an under raiyat are not transferable, and there is nothing in the bengal tenancy act which gives any right to an under raiyat to create a tub lease, this was laid down in the case of aminunnisa v. jinnat ali 27 ind. cas. 271 : 20 c.l.j. 548 : 42 c. 751 : 19 w.n. 43 we hold, on the authority of that decision, that the sub lease granted by.....
Judgment:

1. The appellants, who are the principal defendants in the suit, derive their title under a lease from one Kefatulla's daughter, the defendant No. 5. Kefatulla was himself an under-rate under Jasimuddin. The plaintiff represents Jasimuddin as the raiyat in respect of the land in suit, The defendant No. 5 does not resist the plaintiff's claim to eject her from the land in suit, and, therefore, it seems to us unnecessary to consider whether the surrender by defendant No. 5 was or was not a valid surrender. The question is, whether the defendants have any right to remain in the land. It has been held that the rights of an under raiyat are not transferable, and there is nothing in the Bengal Tenancy Act which gives any right to an under raiyat to create a tub lease, this was laid down in the case of Aminunnisa v. Jinnat Ali 27 Ind. Cas. 271 : 20 C.L.J. 548 : 42 C. 751 : 19 W.N. 43 We hold, on the authority of that decision, that the sub lease granted by Kefatulla's daughter to the principal defendants gave them no rights against the plaintiff. The defendant No. 5 is a party to the suit for ejectment and, as we have said, she did not resist the plaintiff's claim. The appellants, therefore, have no right to remain on the land as against the plaintiff. We think the suit has been rightly decreed by the Courts below. The appeal is dismissed with costs.

2. We may add that Section 86 has in terms no application to this case.


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