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.

Khantomnoni Dasi Vs. Bijoy Chand Mahatab Bahadur Maharaja Dhiraj of Burdwan (Minor) Represented by His Next Friend and Manager Lala Bunbehari Kapur

Khantomnoni Dasi vs Bijoy Chand Mahatab Bahadur Maharaja Dhiraj of Burdwan (Minor) Represented by His Next Friend and Ma

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided May 23, 1892
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/857349

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;Limitation

Case Summary

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

Adverse possession - Suit for possession--Limitation--Purchaser at a patni sale, under Regulation VIII of 1819, not affected by adverse possession prior to date of sale. -

Key legal issue
Property;Limitation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Khantomnoni Dasi

Respondent

Bijoy Chand Mahatab Bahadur Maharaja Dhiraj of Burdwan (Minor) Represented by His Next Friend and Ma

Legal References

Cases Referred
Womesh Chunder Goopto v. Raj Narain Roy
Reported In
(1892)ILR19Cal787

Excerpt

adverse possession - suit for possession--limitation--purchaser at a patni sale, under regulation viii of 1819, not affected by adverse possession prior to date of sale. - .....it free of all incumbrances created subsequent to the original grant of the patni estate.4. the decision of the full bench in the case of womesh chunder goopto v. raj narain roy 10 w.r. 15 is to that effect and there is no doubt that the plaintiff's case must fail on this ground. it is not denied that she has altogether failed to establish any direct lakhiraj title. it is, however, pleaded on her behalf in this appeal that inasmuch as it was found by the court of first instance, and that finding has not been displaced in the lower appellate court, that she has held this land without payment of rent for more than 30 years, a lakhiraj title should be presumed. that, however, was not the case set up by her in her plaint, nor was it made the subject of any finding in the lower courts. such a plea, moreover, is one which would affect the title of the zemindar, and in order to establish any title against him, it would be necessary for her to show that she has held under a lakhiraj title adversely to the zemindar before the creation of this patni. this, too, is not a plea which she has raised in her plaint or in the course of the trial. we are consequently of opinion that her suit should be dismissed, and chat there should be no further trial on any issue which has been raised for the first time in second appeal.5. the appeal must be dismissed with costs.

Full Judgment

Prinsep and Banerjee, JJ.

1. The plaintiff sues to recover possession of 1 1/2 bighas of land as lakhiraj situate within the patni property bought by the defendant at a patni sale. She claims title as being a valid lakhirajdar and also by reason of her having, together with her predecessor, held the land for upwards of 12 years adversely to the landlord.

2. The Munsif gave the plaintiff a decree, on the ground that she had acquired a lakhiraj title by more than 12 years' adverse possession.

3. The District Judge, on appeal, has set aside this decree, and dismissed the suit on the ground that no adverse title could be pleaded against defendant No. 1, who had purchased the property at a patni sale held within 12 years from the date of the institution of the suit and who is entitled to it free of all incumbrances created subsequent to the original grant of the patni estate.

4. The decision of the Full Bench in the case of Womesh Chunder Goopto v. Raj Narain Roy 10 W.R. 15 is to that effect and there is no doubt that the plaintiff's case must fail on this ground. It is not denied that she has altogether failed to establish any direct lakhiraj title. It is, however, pleaded on her behalf in this appeal that inasmuch as it was found by the Court of First Instance, and that finding has not been displaced in the Lower Appellate Court, that she has held this land without payment of rent for more than 30 years, a lakhiraj title should be presumed. That, however, was not the case set up by her in her plaint, nor was it made the subject of any finding in the Lower Courts. Such a plea, moreover, is one which would affect the title of the zemindar, and in order to establish any title against him, it would be necessary for her to show that she has held under a lakhiraj title adversely to the zemindar before the creation of this patni. This, too, is not a plea which she has raised in her plaint or in the course of the trial. We are consequently of opinion that her suit should be dismissed, and chat there should be no further trial on any issue which has been raised for the first time in second appeal.

5. The appeal must be dismissed with costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial