PRASANNA KUMARI CHOWDHURANI Vs. HRIDOY KRISHNA DAS
PRASANNA KUMARI CHOWDHURANI
HRIDOY KRISHNA DAS
Click here to view full judgement.
Maclean, C J -
(1.) A variety of objections have been taken on this appeal, but most of them have been disposed of in the course of the argument. I allude to the points, that the present appellants took their lease under an authority conferred by the plaintiff's mother-in-law, a point not taken in any of the Courts below; that the appellant's possession as raiyats gave them a good title although they obtained that possession through the pro forma defendants who were themselves mere trespassers; and that the present case falls within the principle of Watson and Co. V/s. Ramchund Dutt (1890) I.L.R. 18 Cal. 10: L.R.
(2.) These points have been disposed of during the course of the argument, and it is sufficient to say that I do not think there is anything in any of them.
(3.) The only other point is as to the admissibility of the decree in the previous suit, No. 1 of 1890, thought it has been suggested that if the Court decided against the present appellants they were entitled to some compensation. I do not understand the principle upon which they can be entitled to compensation or as against whom, and no authority has been referred to in support of that contention. They were trespassers upon another man's land; they knew they were trespassers, and, if foolishly they improved, as they say, the property, they cannot charge the plaintiff with the cost of these improvements.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.