Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (3.68 seconds)
Documents citing Dharani Kanta Lahiri Chowdhuri vs Gabar Ali Khan on 5 December, 1912

Mahendra Narayan Ray vs Girish Chandra Kar And Ors. on 10 December, 1917

6. Mr. Bose's contention, shortly put, is that the principle of res judicata does not apply because the Court which determined the issue under Section 105(A) of the Bengal Tenancy Act was not a Court competent to try the issues raised in this suit and that, therefore, on the line of authorities cited, the principle of res judicata does not apply. Two cases are referred to: one is the decision in Dharani Kanta Lahiri v. Gaber Ali Khan (2,); and Mr. Bose strongly relies on this case; and apparently at first sight it would appeal as if it was an authority in his favour That case, which is a decision of the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court decided that Section 13 of the old Civil Procedure Code was not inapplicable to proceedings under the Bengal Tenancy Act; and that, therefore, a decision arrived at by the Revenue Settlement Officer or by the Special Judge was not of necessity a decision which would not operate as res judicata in subsequent civil proceedings But the ratio decidendi of that decision is as the learned Judges say, that there is nothing in the Bengal Tenancy Act to show that the intention of the framers of that Act was to make a decision of the Revenue Settlement Officer or of the Special Judge final. We agree with that expression of opinion, so far as the law then was. This decision was given under the Bengal Tenancy Act as it stood prior to the year 1893. In the year 1898 material changes were made in the wording of Section 107 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. It is clear from the wording of the new section that the words "shall be final" were imported into that section with a view to give finality to a decision arrived at by the Revenue Court or by the Special Judge on appeal.
Patna High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Surajmal And Anr. vs Mangilal And Anr. on 10 January, 1977

In Dharani Kanta Lahiri v. Gabar All Khan, (1913) 25 Mad LJ 98 (PC) the plaintiffs claimed the disputed lands as their own by virtue of their title as a part of their zamindari and alleged that the defendants were in effect (respassers. The defendants contended that the disputed plot was included in a grant to them of the year 1740 renewed in 1845 and that they were all along in possession as permanent tenants under the grant. The defendants also relied on limitation. Their Lordships stated:
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 23 - Cited by 3 - A P Sen - Full Document

Santa Singh Gopal Singh And Ors. vs Rajinder Singh Bur Singh And Ors. on 4 March, 1965

In Official Receiver of East Godavari V. Chava Govindaraju, AIR 1940 Mad 798, a Full Bench speaking through Leach C. J. expressed the view, after a consideration of the Privy Council cases (Mohima Chunder V. Mohesh Chunder, ILR 16 Cal 473 (PC), Mahammad Amanulla Khan v. Badan Singh, ILR 17 Cal 137(P C), and Dharani Kanta V. Gabar Ali, 25 Mad L J 95(P C), that it cannot be maintained that a person who proves title in a suit for ejectment has the right to the decree sought unless the defendant proves adverse possession for 12 years. The plaintiff is not entitled to succeed unless he show, in addition to title, that he has been in possession of the property within 12 years of the suit.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

Sh. Mangal Singh vs Sh. Sewa Singh on 17 December, 2016

through   Leach   C.   J.   expressed   the   view,   after   a consideration   of   the   Privy   Council   cases   (Mohima Chunder   V.   Mohesh   Chunder,   ILR   16   Cal   473   (PC), Mahammad Amanulla Khan v. Badan Singh, ILR 17 Cal 137(P C), and Dharani Kanta V. Gabar Ali, 25 Mad L J 95(P C), that it cannot be maintained that a person who proves title in a suit for ejectment has the right to the decree   sought   unless   the   defendant   proves   adverse possession  for 12 years.
Delhi District Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Janaki Nath Saha And Ors. vs Baikuntha Nath Ghattak And Ors. on 26 April, 1922

and Dharani Kanta Lahiri Chowdhuri v. Gabar Ali Khan 18 Ind. Cas. 17 : 17 C.W.N. 389 : 17 C.L.J. 277 : 13 M.L.T. 185 : (1913) M.W.N. 157 : 15 Bom. L.R. 445 : 25 M.L.J. 95 (P.C.). But the nature of the title set up and the claim made by the plaintiffs in those cases necessarily involved a previous actual possession and a subsequent dispossession by the defendants. Such cases are very different from cases like the present. Here if the plaintiff alleged that actual possession was delivered to him by the Court, the defendants successfully denied that allegation. Actual possession is not, in the circumstances, necessary to the plaintiff's success and we are at liberty to apply the rule of limitation appropriate to the fact found, namely, that he never had more than symbolical possession. I have dealt with the point on the lines on which it was argued but I will add that, in the view I should be disposed to take, even if Article 142 were applied, the plaintiff would still succeed. In each of the cases cited if it had first been shown that the true title was in the plaintiff and if it had then been proved o remitted that the possession of the defendant trespasser had commenced within the period of twelve years before suit, the plaintiff would, I think, have won. As I understand the principle applicable, one trespasser cannot add to his own possession the previous independent possession of another trespasser. When the possession passes from the first to the second trespasser, there is a constructive restoration even if a momentary restoration, of the true title to possession. So here it not being disputed that the true title is with the plaintiff, the fact that the defendants' possession commenced within twelve years of the suit should entitle him to succeed. In my opinion, therefore, as against the defendants Nos. 8 and 9 the suit is wit-bin time and the appeal so far as they are concerned must be dismissed.
Calcutta High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next