TROYLOKHYANATH BOSE Vs. VMNMACLEOD
Click here to view full judgement.
Stevens, J -
(1.) The facts out of which this appeal arises, so far as it is necessary to state them for the purposes of the appeal, are as follows: The plaintiffs are purchasers of the proprietary right in three villages. They sue the defendants for direct possession of certain plots of land in those villages and for mesne profits. The Case of the defendants is that they have a tenant-right in those lands, and that their right was recognized by the predecessors in title of the plaintiffs. It is an admitted fact that at the time when the present suit was instituted an order had been made, under Section 101, oh. X of the Bengal Tenancy Act, for a survey and a record-of-rights in respect of the villages in question; that the defendants had been recorded as tenants of the lands in suit; that the plaintiffs had objected, and that their objections were pending before the Revenue Officer.
(2.) A preliminary objection was raised by the defendants that the suit was not maintainable according to law. It appears from the judgment of the Lower Court that three provisions of law were cited in support of that objection, namely, first Section 104-H (8) of the Bengal Tenancy Act as amended by the Bengal Tenancy Amendment Act of 1898; secondly Section 111; and thirdly Section 111-A. The learned District Judge, as we think, quite rightly, held that the case was not governed by the provisions of Section 104-H (8) or Section 111-A; but he held that it was barred under Section 111 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and further that it was also barred under Section 12 of the Civil P. C..
(3.) He passed an order allowing the plaintiffs to withdraw their suit within ten days without prejudice to their right to sue sthereafter on the same subject-matter in a competent Court; and, on the suit not being withdrawn within the time specified in that order, he dismissed it with cost and interests.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.