Abdul Sammad vs Jitoo Chowdhury on 12 May, 1949
N. 454) which we are not prepared to do in view of the criticism by Mukherjea J. in the case of Arun Kumar Singha v. Durga Charan Basu .
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.34 seconds)Satish Chandra Karmakar And Ors. vs Shaikh Sahadat Hossain on 8 January, 1973
This decision was upheld by the Letters Patent Bench which heard the appeal
therefrom. The decision enunciated the proposition of law. as stated in Arun Kumar Sinha v. Durga Charan Basu 45 Cal WN 805 = (AIR 1941 Cal 606) that where the lands in the holding of an agricultural raiyat consisted partly of agricultural land and partly of homestead lands, and the portion which could be used as homestead was let out for residential purposes the under-tenant would be an under-raiyat within the meaning of the Bengal Tenancy Act and the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act would not be applicable.
Himatsingka Timber Ltd. vs Kumudini Dutta on 21 August, 1952
9. It is contended that the question whether the tenancy in this case was governed by the provisions contained in the Goalpara Tenancy Act or the Transfer of Property Act is a question of great public importance and therefore, the case should be certified as 'otherwise fit for appear to the. Supreme Court. Importance is attributed to the question on the alleged difference of opinion between the Calcutta High Court and this Court. We do not think this is a case of any conflict of views between the two High Courts. The series of cases culminating in--'Arun Kumar v. Durga Qharan', 45 Cal W N 805 were distinguished on the ground that the view in the last and the most important case was based on the definition of the expression 'under-raiyat' as given in the Bengal Tenancy Act. Our conclusion in the case before us was that the relevant provisions of the Goalpara Tenancy Act were different. This Act defined land while the Bengal Tenancy Act did not. The definition of 'under-raiyat' was also different from that in the Bengal Tenancy Act. Land even in the possession of an under-raiyat in order that it should be 'land' within the meaning of Goalpara Tenancy Act should be let out for agricultural purposes or for purposes subservient to agriculture. The provisions of the Goalpara Tenancy Act which were interpreted by this court being different from those of Bengal Tenancy Act, there was no room 'for conflict. The Calcutta view was merely distinguished.
Nirshi Dhobin & Ors vs Dr. Sudhir Kumar Mukherji And Ors on 30 July, 1968
The
decision in Arun Kumar Sinha and Ors v. Durga Charan Basu(4)
iS Of special importance. That case was decided by a
Division Bench consisting of B.K. Mukherjea J. who later
became the Judge as well as the Chief Justice of tiffs Court
and Roxburgh J. There the learned Judges doubted the
correctness of the earlier decisions but yet were of the
opinion that public interest required that the
interpretation placed on the provision of law by a long
series of consistent decisions should not be departed.
This what the learned Judges observed in that case.
1