| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1965 SLG 4680 = 1965 SLD 4680 = 1965 PLD 269 |
Dacca High Court
Civil Rule No. 299 of 1962, decided on 20th May 1964.
Presented By: A. S. Chaudhry, J
Ramdayal Shamanto v. Upendra Nath Shamanto and another 17 C W N 501; Ganga Din v. Gokul Prasad A I R 1950 All. 407; Sona Mia and another v. Prakash Chandra Bhattachariya and others A I R 1940 Cal. 464 and Tamizuddin v. Ashrub Ali I L R 31 Cal. 647 ref. Syed Badrul Alam for D. C. Bhattacharjee for Petitioner. A. R. Khan for the Opposite-Parties. A. Rab (1) for the Deputy Registrar.
Civil Rule No. 299 of 1962, decided on 20th May 1964.
Presented By: A. S. Chaudhry, J
Ramdayal Shamanto v. Upendra Nath Shamanto and another 17 C W N 501; Ganga Din v. Gokul Prasad A I R 1950 All. 407; Sona Mia and another v. Prakash Chandra Bhattachariya and others A I R 1940 Cal. 464 and Tamizuddin v. Ashrub Ali I L R 31 Cal. 647 ref. Syed Badrul Alam for D. C. Bhattacharjee for Petitioner. A. R. Khan for the Opposite-Parties. A. Rab (1) for the Deputy Registrar.
DEBENDRA MOHAN DAS-Petitioner
VERSUS
MUHAMMAD AFAZUDDIN alias AFSARUDDIN AND OTHERS-Opposite-Parties
Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)
Section: 9
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 9-Suit for possession-- Question of title cannot be raised in suit for recovery of possession under S. 9. Nritto Lall Mitter v. Rajendro Narain Deb and others I L R 22 Cal. 562 distinguished. JUDGMENT This Rule is directed against an order made by Mr. A. Hussain, Subordinate Judge, Mymensingh, on 30-9-61 dismissing the suit instituted by the plaintiff-petitioner under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. The petitioner's case is that his father Chand Mohan Das was a bharatia under the predecessor of the opposite-parties Nos. 2 and 6 to 11, in respect of the suit land at a monthly rent of Rs. 18 per month. Owing to old age, the petitioner's father discontinued his business in the premises and the petitioner became a monthly tenant of the said premises and has been peacefully carrying on business for 15 years until he was dispossessed by the opposite-parties on 25-5-57. It is alleged that on that day the petitioner left for his residence to take his meal locking up the shop room and during his short absence, the opposite-parties forcibly entered into the shop room after breaking the lock. On his return after meal, he found himself out of possession. He instituted the present suit for recovery of possession. No counter-affidavit has been filed before me by the opposite parties. It, however, appears from the record that the suit was contested by the opposite-party No. 1 Md. Afazuddin alias Afsaruddin who claims to have purchased the premises from one of the owner, Mukul Roy Chaudhry. His further contention is that the petitioner is not a bharatia tenant and that he was not in possession of the disputed premises and he claims to have been put into possession by his vendor. The suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act was numbered as O. C. Suit No. 35/61 87/60 of the 3rd Court of the Subordinate Judge, Mymensingh. This suit was, however, tried along with a partition suit instituted by Md. Afazuddin in respect of the suit land and that suit was numbered as Partition Suit No. 34/61 . This petition has no concern with the 142/59 partition suit at all. In this case…