Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.58 seconds)
Documents citing Panchanan Banerji And Anr. vs Anant Prasad Pandey And Ors. on 4 March, 1932

Tahad Ali Khan vs Sheikh Israr Ullah And Ors. on 27 September, 1938

4. The learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant has not contested the proposition of law that the mother of a Mahomedan infant is not entitled as his de facto guardian to alienate his property. He has urged that even if the perpetual lease granted by Mt. Rabia Bibi on her behalf as well as on behalf of her sons on 6th October 1925 be held to be invalid under the Mahomedan law, that alone cannot entitle the plaintiff in the circumstances of this case to obtain decree for ejectment from the Civil Court. His contention is that the land having been settled with the defendant as an agricultural tenant, the relationship of landlord and tenant clearly existed and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction under the provisions of the Agra Tenancy Act to entertain the suit for ejectment. He has for the purposes of this argument given up all claims under the perpetual lease in question and has confined his arguments to the rights of the appellants as a tenant of these plots of agricultural land under the provisions of the Tenancy Act. It seems to us that this contention of the learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant is well founded. That the plots in question are agricultural land is admitted on all hands. It is equally clear that they were settled with the appellant by all the co-sharers who were of age and on behalf of the minor co-sharers by their mother under whose protection and care they must have been living. The case is therefore clearly distinguishable from the case in Panchanan Banerji v. Anant Prasad (1932) 19 A.I.R. All. 457 where the agent of one of three co-sharers, who were all sui juris, had settled the land with the defendant, Anant Prasad.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Partap Ahir And Anr. vs Gopi Ram And Anr. on 4 March, 1935

In Panchanan Banerji v. Anant Prasad Pande 1932 All 457, it was held by a Bench of this Court that where all the co-sharers bring a suit in the Civil Court against a tenant who has been put in possession by one co-sharer that person has not become a statutory tenant as he has not been admitted to tenancy by all the three co-sharers, and that the mere fact that one of the co-sharers had granted a lease to the defendant did not prevent the other co-sharers from ejecting him. That case differed in material points from the present case. In the first place the plaintiffs did not make the other co-sharers parties to this suit. We consider that in a suit of this nature Bhagwan Singh, who is found to have put the defendants in possession of this plot, is a person who should have been made a party. If the plaintiffs were not aware that Bhagwan Singh had put the defendants in possession then when the written statement contained the plea that the defendants had been all along in possession as tenants of the zamindars, the plaintiffs should have asked the Court to ascertain under Order 10, Rule 1 or Rule 2 from the defendants which zamindar had put them in possession, and the plaintiffs should have asked for leave to amend their plaint by making that zamindar a party. In the second place the plaintiffs brought their plaint on the assumption that the land in suit lay in the mahal in which they had a 14 annas share. That assumption has misled the Revenue Court and the defendants have been prejudiced in the matter.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Mt. Lachhmina Kunwari vs Mt. Makfula Kunwari And Ors. on 28 January, 1938

11. It remains td consider whether the lower Appellate Court was right in holding that notwithstanding the invalidity of the lease the position of the defendants third set was that of statutory tenants and they could not be ejected by the Civil Court. The creation of tenancy is "permitted" by the Tenancy Act and therefore the right of a, cosharer to confer tenancy rights in a joint, plot is controlled by the provisions of Section 194 of the former and Section 266 of the present Tenancy Act. In the case before us, defendants first party were not the sole owners of the plots in dispute and they could not without the consent of Rudra Narain admit, defendants third set as tenants of the said plots. The defendants third set could not therefore acquire the rights of statutory tenants in the plots. This was the view taken by this Court in Panchanan Banerji v. Anant Prasad Pandey (1932) 19 A.I.R. All. 457. It was held in that case that where land belonging to three cosharers was let to the defendant by the agent of only one of them, without the consent of the other cosharers, the defendant, not having been admitted to tenancy by all the three cosharers, did not j acquire the rights of a statutory tenant and was not entitled to retain possession as such.
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1