Decided on July 31,1901



Banerjee, J - (1.) In these appeals, which arise out of applications for execution of certain rent decrees for sums not exceeding Rs. 500, the main question for determination is whether an application for the execution of a decree obtained by two or more joint-landlords for their share of the rent is governed by the special rule of limitation laid down in Art. 6 of Schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act, or by the general law of limitation, namely, Art. 179 of the Second Schedule of Act XV of 1877.
(2.) If the special law of limitation applies, the applications for execution are barred, unless they can be treated as being in continuation of certain previous applications made within three years from the date of the decrees. If the general law of limitation governs the cases, the applications are in time. The Courts below have held that the applications, which are admittedly made by a co-sharer landlord for the execution of decrees for his share of the rent, are not governed by Art. 6 of Schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and are not barred by limitation; and hence these appeals by the judgment-debtor.
(3.) Babu Saroda Churn Mitter for the appellant contends that a suit by one of several joint landlords for his share of the rent, being a suit between landlord and tenant, is a suit under the Bengal Tenancy Act, and a decree made in such a suit is a, decree under that Act, although certain provisions of the Act, namely, those relating to the sale of tenures and holdings in execution of rent decrees, may not apply to such a decree. He argues that, if it were otherwise, if the special law of limitation did not apply to these cases, anomalous results would follow, such as this, that whereas a rent decree for a sum not exceeding five hundred rupees, if obtained by all the joint landlords suing together, must be completely executed within three years a co-sharer landlord obtaining such a decree can keep it alive for execution against the tenant for twelve years by making successive applications at intervals of three years. And in support of his contention he relies upon Secs.143 and 144 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and the cases of Prem Chand Nuskur V/s. Mokshoda Debi (1887) I. L. R. 14 Calc. 201, Narain Mahton V/s. Manofi Pattuk (1890) I. L. R. 17 Calc. 489 and Parameswar Nomosudra V/s. Kali Mahun Nomosudra (1900) I. L. R. 28 Calc. 127. On the other hand Babu Nilmadhub Bose for the respondent argues that the only rent decrees, which can be treated as decrees under the Bengal Tenancy Act, are decrees obtained by the entire body of landlords, that a decree obtained by one of several joint landlords for his share of the rent is one obtained independently of that Act; and that the anomaly pointed out by the other side may be explained by the fact that a co-sharer landlord cannot obtain satisfaction of his rent decree by the sale of the tenure or holding in arrear, and the Legislature may, in consideration of that fact, have thought it fit to allow him a longer time for realizing the amount of his decree. And in support of this argument reliance is placed upon Section 188 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and the cases of Beni Madhub Roy V/s. Jaod Ali Sircar (1890) I. L. R. 17 Calc. 390, Durga Charan Mandal V/s. Kali Prasanna Sarkar (1899) I. L. R. 26 Calc. 727, and Sadagar Sircar v. Krishna Chandra Bath (1899) I. L. R. 26 Calc. 937. It is further contended for the respondent that, even if the cases were governed by the special law of limitation, the applications were not barred, as they were made in continuation of previous applications, which were in time.;

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