| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1960 SLG 394 1960 SLD 394 1960 PLD 124 |
Dacca High Court
Letters Patent Appeal No. of 1958, decision dated: 11-02-1959.
AMIN AHMED, CHIEF, JUSTICE CHAKRABORTI, JUSTICE
Birendra Nath Chowdhury for Appellant. A. F. M. Mesbahuddin for
Respondents.
Letters Patent Appeal No. of 1958, decision dated: 11-02-1959.
AMIN AHMED, CHIEF, JUSTICE CHAKRABORTI, JUSTICE
Birendra Nath Chowdhury for Appellant. A. F. M. Mesbahuddin for
Respondents.
JNANENDRA KISHORE SARKAR
VS
ISMAIL PRAMANIK AND OTHERS
Law:
Section:
Bengal Tenancy Act (VIII of 1885); Sch. III, Art. 3 Object and application. The object of Article 3 of Schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885 is to provide a short period of limitation for a suit by a raiyat to recover a holding from which he has been dispossessed by his landlord. The reason or excuse, good, bad, indifferent, given or supposed to have b!en given by the landlord for dispossessing his tenant, have no bearing on the enactment. The Article applies to a case where dispossession has been by a person who, at the time of dispossession, in whatever way the dispossession might take place, occupies the position of a landlord or possesses the character of a landlord and had the capacity of a landlord, the dispossession must be taken to have been effected by the landlord. Satis Chandra Bandopadhya and others v. Hashemali Kazi and others 31 C W N 634 (643) and Kedar Nath Biswas v. Kamini Sundari Dasya 28 C W N 482 rel. Rudra Narain Maity v. Natabar Jana 18 C W N 353 ; Srimani Basanta Kumary v. Nanda Rant Kaibarta Das and others 17 C W N 1149; Nabin Chandra Saha v. Sheikh Wajid 24 C W N 382 and Haran Chandra Barai and others v. Madan Mohan Barai and others 25 C W N 102 ref. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: AMIN AHMED, C. J. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff and it arises out of a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. 2. The facts material for the purpose of this appeal may be stated as follows: The suit land appertained to an occupancy holding of Akimannessa and Rameswar Bewa under the superior landlord Rani Sureswari Debi. Akimannessa and Rameswar Bewa settled the suit land in korfa tenancy with the plaintiff, and then defendants Nos. 1 and 2; in collusion with defendant No. 3, a bargadar of the plaintiff, dispossessed the plaintiff. 3. The suit was contested by defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Their defence was that the suit was barred by the general law of limitation and also by special law of limitation inasmuch as the holding in question was purchased by Sureswari Debi in execution of .a rent decree and she took possession of the same and settled it with defendant No. I and defendant No. 1 was in possession since then. 4. The learned…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492