BHRAMAR LAL BAXI AND ANR. Vs. PROMODE RANJAN CHAUDHURY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SRI Promode Ranjan Chowdhury, Respondent before us and hereinafter called the Plaintiff brought a suit in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Cachar, Silchar for recovery of Rs. 7,380/ - as damages for trespass upon the land claimed by Plaintiff and for wrongful occupation of the first floor of the building at a monthly rate of Rs. 205/ -for three years from 1st April 1950 to the 31st March 1953 against Defendant No. 1. He further claimed an Injunction restraining the Defendant from taking the money deposited in and now lying in Karimganj Treasury as monthly rent of Rs. 40 for the four back rooms of the first floor by the Land Customs Department in Requisition Case No. 4 of 1948 -49 until the decision of this case.

(2.) THE Plaintiff's case is that he had a money decree against the Standard Bank Limited, in execution of the said decree he purchased the two -storeyed building and the land upon which it stood. The description of the property is given in the schedule attached to the plaint. The building Is a double storeyed one consisting of seven rooms situate on a land measuring 55 x 55 ft. The property was attached In August 1948 and the auction sale took place on the 10th November, 1948. The sale was confirmed on the 19th February 1949 and the Plaintiff claimed to have taken delivery of possession through court on the 18th September 1949. On the 4th December 1948 Eklimur Raja Chowdhury who has been impleaded as Defendant No. 4 in the court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, granted a lease for six years to Defendant No. 1. The Standard Bank executed a mortgage in favour of Defendant. No. 4 on the 12th August 1948. The mortgagee Defendant No. 4 gave the portion of the building in question to Defendant No. 1 on lease. Four rooms of the first floor were in the actual occupation of the Land Customs Department on being requisitioned by the Deputy Commissioner. Possession was taken by the Land Customs Department on the 1st February 1949 and thereafter the Plaintiff under the purchase claimed rent from the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar as according to him the rooms belonged to him. As to the three other rooms of the first floor the case of the Plaintiff is that they are illegally in occupation of the Defendant No. 1 and he has claimed damages for such illegal occupation. The mortgage executed by the Standard Bank in favour of Defendant No. 4 is challenged. It is further urged that the lease is invalid. The trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal to this Court the single Judge has set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge and has decreed the suit. It is against this decision that the present appeal has come up before this bench.

(3.) SECTION 109 of the Indian Companies Act 1913 which corresponds to Section 125 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, is as follows: