| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1965 SLG 11 1965 SLD 11 1965 PLD 434 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 14-D of 1963, decision dated: 7th January 1965
A. R. CORNELIUS, C, J., S. A. RAHMAN AND HAMOODUR RAHMAN, JJ
S. R. Pal Senior Advocate Supreme Court (B. N. Chowdhury Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Abdur Rab-11 Attorney for Appellants. Muhammad Jani Alam Advocate Supreme Court instructed by A. N. M. Nasir-ud-Din Attorney for
Respondent No. 2. Resp
Civil Appeal No. 14-D of 1963, decision dated: 7th January 1965
A. R. CORNELIUS, C, J., S. A. RAHMAN AND HAMOODUR RAHMAN, JJ
S. R. Pal Senior Advocate Supreme Court (B. N. Chowdhury Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Abdur Rab-11 Attorney for Appellants. Muhammad Jani Alam Advocate Supreme Court instructed by A. N. M. Nasir-ud-Din Attorney for
Respondent No. 2. Resp
PRAMATHA NATH CHOWDHURY AND 17 OTHERS
VS
(1) KAMIR MONDAL, (2) ISMAIL MONDAL, (3) BAJU MONDAL alias HAGURA MONDAL AND (4) DUKHA ONDAL
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1962
Section: 58
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58-Leave to appeal to Supreme Court-Granted to consider whether proviso to cl. (17) of S. 3, Bengal Tenancy Act (VIII of 1885) introduced by amendment in 1928 had been correctly interpreted by the High Court when it held that it was still open to a person sued for price of share of crop as bargadar to set up defence that he was not a bargadar but a tenant. (b) Bengal Tenancy Act (VIII of 1885), S. 3 (17) proviso introduced by Bengal Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1928--History of amending Act-Interpretation of statutes-Statement of Objects and Reasons; statements made by Member-in-charge on floor of House, referred to. (c) Interpretation of statutes-Proviso-Exception to substantive provision. (d) Interpretation of statutes-Definition clause-Has effect of declaratory provision and governs all cases coming within its ambit. (e) Bengal Tenancy Act (VIII of 1885), S. 3(17), proviso Raiyati coming into existence prior to introduction of proviso-Landlord filing suit for recovery of his share of crop against raiyat describing him as bargadar-Tenant putting up defence that he is tenant and not bargadar-Held, proviso was no bar to such defence. Suresh Chandra Dutta and others v. Mohendra Chandra De and others A I R 1931 Cal. 91 Sishu Mohan Koyal and others v. Rajendra Nath Sarkar and others A I R 1938 Cal. 707 ; Digambar Paul v. Tufazuddin Ijaradar A I R 1934 Cal. 80 ; Sudhindra Chandra Singha Sarma and others v. Java Marak and another A I R 1941 Cal. 717 and Abu Nasser Sayedullah v. Abdul Malik alias Mala and another P L D 1960 Dacca 587 discussed. (f) Bengal Tenancy Act (VIII of 1885), S. 103-B-Recordof-rights-Presumption--Entries presumed correct on date of preparation of record-Probative value diminishes with lapse of time-Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 114. (g) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 107 (1) (b), O. XLI, rr. 23 & 24-Remand of cases-Evidence on record sufficient for appellate Court to decide question itself-Remand not to be lightly ordered. JUDGMENT HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.-This appeal by special leave, arises out of a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,100 on account of the price of barga crop grown by the…
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