Calcutta High Court
Khetra Pal Singh vs Kritarthamoyi Dassi on 26 February, 1906
Equivalent citations: (1906)ILR 33CAL566
JUDGMENT Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.
1. For my own part I think this Rule ought to have been discharged, and might have been discharged, on a very short and simple ground and that is this. At the date of the suit and the date of the decree the plaintiff was undoubtedly the landlord. It was, therefore, clearly a suit and a decree under the Bengal Tenancy Act; and that being so, when we look at Section 170 of that Act, it is clear that Section 278 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply. That, to my mind, is sufficient to dispose of the Rule.
2. But upon the question submitted, I think the first question is a little too wide in its terms. In my opinion if, at the time when a suit is instituted and a decree is made, the plaintiff is still the landlord, the fact that subsequently he sells his landlord's interest does not prevent him from obtaining the benefit of Section 65 of the Act, and if the decision in the case of Hem Chunder Bhunjo v. Mon Mohini Dassi (1894) 3 C.W.N. 604 is, as apparently it is, opposed to this view, then I respectfully dissent from it.
3. The result is that this Rule must be discharged with costs, including the costs of this Reference.
Ghosh, J.
4. I agree in the judgment which my Lord has delivered.
Rampini, J.
5. I also agree. It may be that the first question which has been propounded for our decision has been couched in too wide terms. But it certainly appears to me, for the reasons given in my Order of Reference, that the case of Hem Chunder Bhunjo v. Mon Mohini Dassi (1894) 3 C.W.N. 604 has been wrongly decided, and I dissent from it.
Sale, J.
6. I agree in the judgment delivered by the Chief Justice.
Pratt, J.
7. I agree in the judgment of my Lord the Chief Justice.