Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Arip Mandal Vs. Ram Ratan Mandal

Arip Mandal vs Ram Ratan Mandal

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Mar 21, 1904
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/855921

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kolkata
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Under - raiyat, heir of--Possession, right to remain in. -

Key legal issue
Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Arip Mandal

Respondent

Ram Ratan Mandal

Legal References

Reported In
(1904)ILR31Cal757

Excerpt

under - raiyat, heir of--possession, right to remain in. - francis w. maclean, c.j.1. in our opinion, irrespective of custom or local usage, the heir of an under-raiyat under an annual holding as entitled, on the death of the under-raiyat, to remain in possession of the land, until the end of the agricultural year, for the purpose, if the land has been sublet, of realising the rent which might accrue during the year, or if not sublet, for the purpose of tending and gathering in the crops. in this case the suit was not brought until after the expiration of the then agricultural year. although there was a claim for mesne profits, there is no evidence whatever to show that there wore any, or that there were any crops which had been sown by the plaintiff's predecessor. the result, therefore, is that there is nothing which he can claim in this suit; and the suit must be dismissed.2. the appellant is entitled to his costs in the two lower courts, but to no costs of this appeal.prinsep, j.3. i am of the same opinion.ghose, j.4. i agree.harington, j.5. i agree.brett, j.6. i agree.

Full Judgment

Francis W. Maclean, C.J.

1. In our opinion, irrespective of custom or local usage, the heir of an under-raiyat under an annual holding as entitled, on the death of the under-raiyat, to remain in possession of the land, until the end of the agricultural year, for the purpose, if the land has been sublet, of realising the rent which might accrue during the year, or if not sublet, for the purpose of tending and gathering in the crops. In this case the suit was not brought until after the expiration of the then agricultural year. Although there was a claim for mesne profits, there is no evidence whatever to show that there wore any, or that there were any crops which had been sown by the plaintiff's predecessor. The result, therefore, is that there is nothing which he can claim in this suit; and the suit must be dismissed.

2. The appellant is entitled to his costs in the two lower Courts, but to no costs of this Appeal.

Prinsep, J.

3. I am of the same opinion.

Ghose, J.

4. I agree.

Harington, J.

5. I agree.

Brett, J.

6. I agree.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial