Macnaghten Vs. Gopal and anr.

Macnaghten vs Gopal and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Apr 23, 1881

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/871689

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/871689
Court: Kolkata
Judge: Mitter and ;Maclean, JJ.
Decided On: Apr 23, 1881
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

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

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Macnaghten

Respondent

Gopal and anr.

Legal References

Reported In: (1881)ILR7Cal751

Excerpt

- mitter, j.1. the first question that has been argued before us is, whether an undivided fractional shareholder of a mouza can enhance the rent of a holding of a joint tenant. but whether he can or not, we are clearly of opinion that such a suit as this is not maintainable in the absence of the other shareholder or shareholders. conceding that a single shareholder can raise the rent of a joint tenant without the consent of his coparceners, it is clear that he can only do so in a suit to which all the sixteen annas proprietors must be made parties, otherwise the rent of the same holding might be raised to two or more different amounts at the instance of the several coparceners.2. we are, therefore, of opinion that the decree of the lower courts is not sustainable, and we dismiss the suit with costs in all the courts.3. this decision will govern appeals nos. 2665 to 2763, 2861 to 2870, and 2880 to 2885 of 1879, in which the plaintiff's suit is likewise dismissed with costs.

Full Judgment

Mitter, J.

1. The first question that has been argued before us is, whether an undivided fractional shareholder of a mouza can enhance the rent of a holding of a joint tenant. But whether he can or not, we are clearly of opinion that such a suit as this is not maintainable in the absence of the other shareholder or shareholders. Conceding that a single shareholder can raise the rent of a joint tenant without the consent of his coparceners, it is clear that he can only do so in a suit to which all the sixteen annas proprietors must be made parties, otherwise the rent of the same holding might be raised to two or more different amounts at the instance of the several coparceners.

2. We are, therefore, of opinion that the decree of the lower Courts is not sustainable, and we dismiss the suit with costs in all the Courts.

3. This decision will govern Appeals Nos. 2665 to 2763, 2861 to 2870, and 2880 to 2885 of 1879, in which the plaintiff's suit is likewise dismissed with costs.

Same Parties Macnaghten vs Gopal and anr. Same Subject Civil Same Judge Mitter and ;Maclean, JJ.

Civil