Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.14 seconds)
Shoroshi Charan Ghose And Ors. vs Bhagloo Sah And Anr. on 3 May, 1920 cites

Mohoram Sheikh Chaprasai And Anr. vs Telamuddin Khan And Anr. on 17 July, 1911

1. The controversy in this case relates to the nature of the disputed tenancy. The plaintiffs-appellants maintained that the tenancy was of a temporary nature and was non-transferable. The defendants contended that the tenancy was of a permanent character and was transferable. The Courts below have found that the origin of the tenancy was unknown but that it had been in existence for at least half a century, that the land was let out for residential purposes, that it had been held at a uniform rent, and that the tenant had actually built a dwelling house thereon and lived there from the inception of the tenancy till the sale to the defendants. From these circumstances, the District Judge drew the inference that the tenancy was permanent and transferable. His conclusion is supported by a long series of decisions of recognised authority which are reviewed in the case of Mohoram Sheikh Chaprasi v. Telamuddin Khan 13 Ind. Cas.
Calcutta High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Surendra Nath Roy And Ors. vs Dwarka Nath Chakrabutty And Anr. on 2 May, 1916

606 : 15 C.L.J. 220 : 16 C.W.N. 567 and are in harmony with the recent judgment of the Judicial Committee in Surendra Nath Roy v. Dwarka Nath 50 Ind. Cas. 856 : 24 C.W.N. 1 : (1919) M.W.N. 811 (P.C.). On behalf of the plaintiffs it has been argued, however, that the tenancy should not have been held to be permanent and transferable; first, because the dwelling house was not brick built, and secondly, because the tenancy is not shown to be heritable. In our opinion, there is no force in either of these contentions. In the first place, it is plain that the dwelling house need not be brick-built in order to indicate that the tenancy was intended in its inception to be of a permanent character. In the second place, there has been no occasion for inheritance, because the original tenant has lived for over half a century. No doubt, if the original tenant had died and the landlord had thereupon resumed possession, that might have been evidence to show that the tenancy was not of a permanent character.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 17 - Full Document
1