Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.18 seconds)The Midnapur Zamindary Company Ltd. vs Kumar Naresh Narayan Roy on 7 April, 1924
3. The main argument on behalf of the appellants rests on certain observations of the Judicial Committee in Midnapur Zemindary Co., Ltd. v. Naresh Narayan Roy 80 Ind. Cas. 827 : 6 P.L.T. 750 : A.I.R. 1924 P.C. 144 : 26 Bom. L.R. 651 : 47 M.L.J.33 : 51 C. 631 : 85 M.L.T. 169 : (1924) M.W.N. 723 : 29 C.W.N. 34 : 20 L. W. 770 : 51 I. A. 293 : L.R. 5 A. (P.C.) 137 : 13 A.L.J. 76 : 3 Pat. L.R. 193 (P.C.), where it is said that partition is the remedy which a co-owner has if he and his other co-owners cannot agree as to how the lands which they hold in common should be managed; and further.
Nandkishore Singh And Ors. vs Mathura Sahu And Ors. on 5 July, 1921
The same view was taken in Nandkishore Singh v. Mathura Sahu 65 Ind. Cas. 586 : 3 P.L.T. 13 : A.I.R. 1922 Pat. 193, where the argument that the purchasing co-proprietors ceased to be co-proprietors after the partition and that the partition effected a complete change in the status was dealt with and was negatived.
Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885
Lala Bambhadur Lal And Ors. vs Musammat Gungora Kuar on 22 May, 1925
I do not see what there is in partition to take away that privilege. On the contrary it would appear that the partition only removes the necessity for the limitation on the effect of the purchase and would set free the holding to be operated upon by the ordinary provisions of the law. In other words, Section 22 (2) imposes a limitation on the rights of the co-sharers for the benefit of the purchasing co-sharer: and there is no reason why this limitation should be removed by reason only of a partition taking place. That no undue stress is to be laid on the word "co-proprietors" in the sense contended for by the appellants would appear from the decision of this Court in Bambhadur Lal v. Gungora Kaur 89 Ind. Cas. 232 : 7 P.L.T. 87 : 3 Pat. L.R. 138 : A.I.R. 1925 Pat. 547, where the status conferred by Section 22 (2) was discussed and it was held that the status created was a peculiar status which attached to the co-sharer so long as he remained a co-sharer; it was held that when the co-sharer parted with his interest in the estate he lost the right to retain land under that section. But in referring to the decisions where it had been held that on partition the purchasing co-sharer was entitled to retain possession of land recorded in his name under Section 22 (2) of the Bengal Tenancy Act, Kulwant Sahay, J., said: "In these cases the interest of the co-sharer who had purchased the holding did not cease; he continued to be the proprietor after the partition, and hence it was held that he was entitled to retain possession." His right to possession was, therefore, not limited to the period of the co-proprietorship but continued because the co-proprietor continued to be a proprietor (though of another takhta) after the partition. The authorities bearing directly on the question are conclusive in favour of the respondents.
Mathra Prasad vs Gokal Chand And Anr. on 22 May, 1919
In Ram Prasad v. Gopal Chand 58 Ind. Cas. 955 : 2 P.L.T. 163, the precise question now under consideration was dealt with and it was held that the defendants could not be ejected from such lands upon partition; and that the Legislature never intended nor did the language of Section 22 (2) give rise to the interpretation that the co-proprietor acquiring an occupancy holding by purchase, although entitled to retain possession on payment of rent to his co-sharers, must give it up the moment the estate in which the land is situate is partitioned among the co-proprietors.
Basudeo Narain vs Radha Kishun And Dabindra Missir And ... on 23 July, 1921
A similar view was taken in Basudeo Narayan v. Radha Kishun 65 Ind. Cas. 281 : 3 P.L.T. 32 : (1922) Pat. 55 : A.I.R. 1922 Pat. 62, a case which dealt with Section 22 (2) of the Act as it stood before the amendment in 1907. In that case their Lordships observe as follows:
1