Sunder And Ors. vs Kirpu And Ors. on 29 May, 1979
13. So far as the cases involving claims to tenancy over a particular piece of land are concerned, the reported decisions of the High Courts in India are not uniform, because, while some High Courts have held that a claim to tenancy rights is a claim which directly involves a question respecting the immoveable property with regard to which the tenancy rights are claimed, some other High Courts have taken a contrary view, However, if the above referred decision given by the Supreme Court in Chittarmal v. Pannalal is taken to mean that the word "property", which is referred to in Clause (b) of Article 133 (1), should be construed as property regarding which the actual dispute exists, and not the property with which the actual dispute has a remote connection--the former set of decisions should be treated as implicitly overruled as held by the Calcutta High Court in Ramric Lal v. Sachindra Narayan reported in AIR 1968 Cal 316. However, before considering the reported decisions which are cited at the Bar during the course of the hearing of this appeal, we would prefer to construe the provisions contained in Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (b) of para 32 (1) of the order according to the settled principles of interpretation of statutes.