Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.22 seconds)
Documents citing Panchanan Banerji vs Rai Kumar Guha on 11 July, 1892

Behari Lal Mallik vs Priya Nath Sardar And Ors. on 24 March, 1914

4. As regards the third contention, we are unable to appreciate the argument that there has been a severance of joint tenancy amongst the landlords, because one or more of them has acted in collusion with the tenant. Reliance has been placed upon a familiar class of cases, of which the decisions in Panchanan Banerji v. Raj Kumar Guha 19 C. 610; Matungini Dassi v. Ram Das 7 C.W.N. 93, Sailendra Nath v. Karali Charn Singh 2 C.L.J. 534 and Bhabatarini Dasi v. Ekabbar Malita 5 C.L.J. 235 : 2 M.L.T. 155 may be taken as examples" which it was held that where a tenant has agreed to allow one of several co-sharer landlords to deal with him as if that co-sharer was his sole landlord, without regard to the interest of the other co-sharers, the effect is to create a separate tenancy under such a fractional co-sharer so as to render Section 188 inapplicable.
Calcutta High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Munshi Imam-Ud-Din Chaudhri vs Danesh Mahammad And Anr. on 23 April, 1912

See Panchanan Banerji v. Raj Kumar Guha 19 C. 610; Mutungini Dasi v. Ram Das Mullick 7 C.W.N. 93; Gobinda Chandra Pal v. Hamidulla Bhuian 7 C.W.N. 670 Jognesh Prokash Ganguli v. Maniraddi 35 C. 417. It is true the first case related to a "tenure" andnot a "holding," in the second case the kabulyat was executed before the Bengal Tenancy Act, and it is not clear whether the subject-matter of the last case was a "tenure" or holding. But the distinction between a tenure" and a "holding" does not affect the present case for reasons already stated and I refer to those cases only for the purpose of showing that a separate tenancy was held to be constituted in those cases in undivided shares of land under the circumstances stated above.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gopi Sundari Dasi vs Haladhar Mazumdar And Ors. on 7 July, 1915

Again he goes on to say that in a certain roadcess return the plaintiff has described Torap, the predecessor of Ananda, and Dinu, the predecessor of Enait, as his tenants; and again that, in a rent suit brought by the chhota tarnf for their shnre of rents, Mini, the son of Torap, and Enait, the son of Dinu, were both impleaded as tenants. It also appears even in the present case that Enait has been impleaded as a tenant. Upon all these facts, the learned Subordinate Judge has declined to come to the finding that there was a splitting up of the tenancy and I cannot interfere in second appeal. Reliance has been placed, on behalf of the appellants on the following cases: Gobind Chandra Pal v. Hamidull Bhuian 7 C.W.N. 670; Panchanan Banerji v. Raj Kumar Guha 19 C. 610; Bhabatarini Dasi v. Ekabbar Malita 5 C.L.J. 235 : 2 M.L.T. 155 (F.B.)
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1