Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.30 seconds)
Krishna Kanta Ghosh vs Jadu Kasya And Ors. on 5 February, 1915 cites

Abdul Karim Patwari vs Abdul Rahman And Anr. on 18 July, 1911

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment of the defendants, who are the respondents in this appeal, from a, piece of homestead land, under Section 49, Clause (b), of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiff-appellant is a raiyat and his holding consists partly of agricultural and partly of homestead land. He let out the homestead portion to the defendants. Although that portion is not agricultural, the incidents of the sub-lease held by the defendants would be governed by the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act having regard to the nature of the original tenancy of the plaintiff, and not by the Transfer of Property Act see Balm Ram Roy v. Mohendra Nath Samanla 8 C.W.N. 451 and Abdul Karim v. Abdul Rahman 13 Ind. Cas. 364 : 16 C.W.N. 618 : 15 C.L.J. 672. The defendants are, therefore, under-raiyats and are prima facie liable to be ejected under Section 49, Clause (b) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The defendants, however, hold lands as a raiyat, not under the same landlord, but under a different landlord and in a different village contiguous to his homestead land. The Courts below have held that as the defendants are settled raiyats of the adjoining village, they have acquired a right of occupancy in the homestead under the provisions of Sections 20 and 182 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiff has appealed to this Court.
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 20 - Full Document
1