DHANANJAY DAS Vs. KALASASI CHAKRABARTI
LAWS(CAL)-1951-4-31
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on April 06,1951

DHANANJAY DAS Appellant
VERSUS
Kalasasi Chakrabarti Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RAM NARAIN ROUTH V. LAL DAS ROUTH [REFERRED]
UMATUL FATIMA V. NEMAI CHARAN BANERJI [REFERRED]
<RC>LAWSUIT(CAL) 1951 0 346;ILR(CAL) 1952 2 54;</RC> HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA <JGN>ROXBURGH</JGN> DHANANJAY DAS KALASASI CHAKRABARTI <AT>CIVIL REVISION CASE 955 OF 1950</AT> 06.04.1951 <SUBJECT>CIVIL,TENANCY</SUBJECT><SI> CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,1908 SEC 47; <ACT>CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,1908</ACT> <S>S.47</S> </SI> <FV></FV> <ADV>SYAMA CHARAN MITTER [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This Rule raises an interesting question under Section 171 of Bengal Tenancy Act, on which apparently there is no previous decision. The depositor under Section 171 of the Act was put into possession by the order of the executing court following the procedure approved of in the case of Umatul Fatima v. Nemai Charan Banerji,1940 6 CLJ 592 (594). The present Applicant, being the original judgement-debtor, moved the court to obtain possession again of the property on the ground that the period specified in Section 171(7)(c) had expired, namely, that during the period the debt with interest due thereon has been discharged.
(2.)The learned munsif has held that the Applicant's remedy is byway, of a suit and has, therefore; rejected the application.
(3.)The Act itself provides no explicit procedure either as to how the depositor is to be put into possession, or how, as in the present case, he is to be removed from possession. The former question has been settled by the case cited. The learned Judges remarked:
We think there is nothing in the section itself to indicate that it is necessary that a person who has paid money under the section should bring a separate regular suit to obtain possession. We are of opinion that it was the intention of the legislature that, on payment of the sum, the person making the payment should, on application to the Court, be entitled to be placed in possession of the tenure, and we think that, to hold the contrary view, namely, that such a person should be bound to bring a regular suit to obtain possession would, in fact, defeat the object of the section itself.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.