Shaikh Inatullah Daftry Vs. Shaikh Moison Ali and anr.

Shaikh Inatullah Daftry vs Shaikh Moison Ali and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Apr 29, 1914

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/880555

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/880555
Court: Kolkata
Judge: Woodroffe and ;Mullick, JJ.
Decided On: Apr 29, 1914
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Eastern Bengal Tenancy Act (I of 1908 B.C.), Section 22(2) - Occupancy holding, transfer of, to co-sharer landlord--Recognition of transfer by other landlords--Suit for possession by co-sharer landlord--Limitation--Bengal Tenancy Act (VIII of 1885), Schedule III, Article 3. -

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shaikh Inatullah Daftry

Respondent

Shaikh Moison Ali and anr.

Legal References

Reported In: AIR1915Cal86,25Ind.Cas.414

Excerpt

eastern bengal tenancy act (i of 1908 b.c.), section 22(2) - occupancy holding, transfer of, to co-sharer landlord--recognition of transfer by other landlords--suit for possession by co-sharer landlord--limitation--bengal tenancy act (viii of 1885), schedule iii, article 3. - .....the contention, however, is that section 22 (2) does not apply because this refers to a transfer of the occupancy rights and, therefore, assumes that the holding of the occupancy raiyat is capable of transfer. as regards this, however, it mast be noted that the court has found that the plaintiff's purchase was recognised and that rent has been received from him by his co-proprietors. the fact may be looked at in one of two ways--either such evidence of recognition may be regarded as evidence that the holding is one which can be transferred, or it is a case in which co-proprietors have validated a transfer which had previously taken place and which is possibly voidable at their instance. in either case it seems to me that section 22 would apply.2. section 22(2) provides (i am referring to the eastern bengal tenancy act) that 'if the occupancy right in land is transferred to a person jointly interested in the land as proprietor or permanent tenure-holder, such person shall have no right to hold the land as a raiyat, but shall hold it as proprietor or permanent tenure-holder, as the case may be, and shall pay to his co-sharers a fair and equitable sum for the use and-occupation of the same.'3. i would, therefore, modify the decree which declares the plaintiff's raiyati right into a decree which affirms the plaintiff's right by purchase from the original tenant and declare that as such purchaser he is entitled to hold the lands so purchased on payment to his co-sharers of a fair and equitable sum for the use and occupation of the same4. there is nothing in the judgment before us which tells us the actual amount of the rent paid by the original tenant and subsequently by the plaintiff.5. subject to this modification which does not affect the merits of this appeal the appeal must be dismissed with costs.mullick, j.6. i agree.

Full Judgment

Woodroffe, J.

1. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that the suit is barred under the special law of limitation of two years provided by the Tenancy Act. It is conceded, however, that if Section 22 (2) of the Bengal Tenancy Act applies then in so far as the plaintiff would not in such case be a raiyat, the special limitation would not be applicable. The contention, however, is that Section 22 (2) does not apply because this refers to a transfer of the occupancy rights and, therefore, assumes that the holding of the occupancy raiyat is capable of transfer. As regards this, however, it mast be noted that the Court has found that the plaintiff's purchase was recognised and that rent has been received from him by his Co-proprietors. The fact may be looked at in one of two ways--either such evidence of recognition may be regarded as evidence that the holding is one which can be transferred, or it is a case in which co-proprietors have validated a transfer which had previously taken place and which is possibly voidable at their instance. In either case it seems to me that Section 22 would apply.

2. Section 22(2) provides (I am referring to the Eastern Bengal Tenancy Act) that 'if the occupancy right in land is transferred to a person jointly interested in the land as proprietor or permanent tenure-holder, such person shall have no right to hold the land as a raiyat, but shall hold it as proprietor or permanent tenure-holder, as the case may be, and shall pay to his co-sharers a fair and equitable sum for the use and-occupation of the same.'

3. I would, therefore, modify the decree which declares the plaintiff's raiyati right into a decree which affirms the plaintiff's right by purchase from the original tenant and declare that as such purchaser he is entitled to hold the lands so purchased on payment to his co-sharers of a fair and equitable sum for the use and occupation of the same

4. There is nothing in the judgment before us which tells us the actual amount of the rent paid by the original tenant and subsequently by the plaintiff.

5. Subject to this modification which does not affect the merits of this appeal the appeal must be dismissed with costs.

Mullick, J.

6. I agree.

Same Parties Shaikh Inatullah Daftry vs Shaikh Moison Ali and anr. Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Woodroffe and ;Mullick, JJ.

Land Acquisition