Skip to content


Rajendra Nath (Kumar) Das Vs. Peyari Mohan Das and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in94Ind.Cas.321
AppellantRajendra Nath (Kumar) Das
RespondentPeyari Mohan Das and ors.
Excerpt:
hindu law - alienation--permanent lease by widow in consideration of alienee, looking after her--legal necessity. - .....chandra who lived in the house as ghar jawai. mahima had a daughter born and brought up in the house of haramani. she was married to defendant no. 1. it is said that the land in possession of defendant no. 1 was granted under a permanent lease to him by haramani. the finding is that defendant no. 1 was given a lease of these properties in consideration of his looking after haramani who had no male relation to look after her or her property. for that consideration defendant no. 1 married her grand-daughter and lived in the house as ghar jawai. the learned, judge held that that was good legal necessity. i see no reason to differ from him.2. on that ground the appeal with regard to the properties in the possession of defendant no. 1 must be dismissed with costs.3. the plaintiff got a.....
Judgment:

B.B. Ghose, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of khas possession of a certain land on the ground that the plaintiff as the reversioner of one Rup Chand Das who died many years ago. Rup Chand left a widow Haramani and a daughter. The daughter was married to one Mahima Chandra who lived in the house as ghar jawai. Mahima had a daughter born and brought up in the house of Haramani. She was married to defendant No. 1. It is said that the land in possession of defendant No. 1 was granted under a permanent lease to him by Haramani. The finding is that defendant No. 1 was given a lease of these properties in consideration of his looking after Haramani who had no male relation to look after her or her property. For that consideration defendant No. 1 married her grand-daughter and lived in the house as ghar jawai. The learned, Judge held that that was good legal necessity. I see no reason to differ from him.

2. On that ground the appeal with regard to the properties in the possession of defendant No. 1 must be dismissed with costs.

3. The plaintiff got a decree as against defendant No. 3 in both the Courts below which was not challanged.

Cuiming, J.

4. I agree.


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