Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.27 seconds)
Gopal Chandra Das And Anr. vs Kumar Satya Bhanu Ghoshal And Ors. on 17 July, 1925 cites

Rajah Of Venkatagiri vs Mukku Narsaya And Ors. on 26 April, 1910

7. I now come to the contention that the appellants' predecessors obtained a mokarrari mouraslii right by adverse possession. 'What is found is that in 1868 they asserted that right and the landlords took no steps to contest that assertion. In my opinion the mere assertion of such right by an admitted tenant would not create any right superior to that of his tenancy even though followed by possession for over 12. years. On behalf of the appellants my attention has been drawn to a decision of the Madras High Court in Rajah of Venkatagiri v. Mukku Narasaya 7 Ind. Cas. 202: 37 M. 1 : 8 M.L.T. 258 : (1910) M.W.N. 309 At page 9 Page of 37.--[Ed] it is stated: "So far as this Presidency is concerned, it would seem to be well settled that a person who has lawfully come into possession as tenant from year to year or a term of years cannot by setting up, however, notoriously, during the continuance of such relation, any title adverse to that of the landlord inconsistent with the legal relation between them, acquire, by limitation,, title as owner or any other title inconsistent with that under which he was let into possession". The judgment further points out that this doctrine is consistent with the law in England. It then goes on to say: "We do not find the doctrine has been formulated in the other High Courts in India. In fact in Calcutta and Bombay, the view would seem to be that the assertion of the adverse, right coupled with possession for the statutory period is enough". In support of this statement two Calcutta cases are cited, but neither of them contain a denial of the principle there stated.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Seshamma Shettati And Ors. vs Chickaya Hegade And Ors. on 14 February, 1902

214 has been summarized and distinguished in an earlier decision of the Madras High Court, Seshamma Shettati v. Chiekaya Hegade 25 M. 507 : 12 M.L.J. 119. There the tenants who were held entitled to plead the right by prescription became trespassers from the date of the death of the widow and continued to hold the land for statutory period professing to hold the same as permanent tenants under the lease granted by the widow. There is no doubt that a trespasser, whether he is a former tenant whose tenancy has come to an end or whether he is a tenant encroaching as in on other lands of the landlord, can by prescription acquire a tenancy right.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

Abdul Hakim Khan Chaudhuri vs Elahi Baksha Sha And Ors. on 9 June, 1924

6. For the appellants it is contended that this kabuliyat is a confirmatory lease recognizing the existing tenancy. Although it would appear from the kabuliyat that the executant had held the land previous to its execution, it also appears that the tenancy "by virtue of which he held the land previously had come to an end, since it is stated that the term had expired. A fresh lease executed after the expiration of the term of the previous lease creates a new tenancy and is not a confirmation of the previous tenancy, I would, therefore, hold that the tenancy of the appellants' predecessors commenced with this lease as evidenced by the kabuliyat and was, therefore, known. I would further hold that even if this be not treated as the commencement of a new tenancy it is strong evidence in the plaintiffs' favour to show that the terms on which the land was let to the plaintiffs were not the terms of a permanent lease. Further if 1 were to hold that this is a case in which I have to consider whether permanent tenancy should have to be inferred from all the facts of the case it would be very hard for the appellants to explain the admission made by defendant No. 8 that what he had purchased was only a monthly thica charatia tenancy-at-will. Holdingas I do that the origin of the tenancy is known it follows on the law as laid down in the case as already cited that no presumption of permanency should be made in the appellants' favour in the present case.
Calcutta High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Maharaja Birendra Kishore Manikya ... vs Srimati Fuljan Bibi And Ors. on 12 February, 1917

But no case of this Court has been shown to me in which it has been held that a tenant from year to year can by setting up a title adverse to that of his landlord acquire a title giving him a better right than that which he has under his con-tract of tenancy: whereas the principle stated as established by the Madras High Court has been followed in Birendra Kishore Manikya v. Fuljan Bibi 38 Ind. Cas. 469 : 23 C.L.J. 467 It was there held that while the contract of tenancy is in force either party cannot practically obtain a variation thereof by persisting for a long period in his assertion that the term is otherwise than what it really is. I, therefore, hold that since the defendants' predecessors were in possession as tenants on the terms of the kabuliyat which has been proved in this case the mere assertion by them in 1868 that they had mokarrari mourashi tenancy would not give them any greater right than they held under the lease.
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1