Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.33 seconds)Panchanan Banerji vs Rai Kumar Guha on 11 July, 1892
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.)
1