Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.22 seconds)
Narain Singh vs Baba Alias Gabhrail Uraon And Anr. And ... on 5 February, 1918 cites

Khetra Nath Ghatack vs Paru Beuri And Ors. on 27 January, 1911

But having regard to the fact that the word suits is also used in many of the subsections in the same section, I cannot believe that it was intended in the present Act that not only applications such as those I have described should be confined to the Deputy Commissioner's Court alone but also suits which claimed not only to be put in possession but also included claims for declarations and matters of that sort. In the present case it is noticeable that not only did the plaintiff seek the relief of being put in possession of the disputed land, but he sought a decree adjudicating upon his korkar rights and claimed also any other reliefs to which he was entitled in the opinion of the Court. In any case I do not think that Section 139, Sub-section 5, of the Act in question was intended to bar a suit being brought in some other Court besides that of the Deputy Commissioner. The matter has already been the subject of judicial decision in a case which came before the High Court of Calcutta in 1910 and the judgment of Woodroffe and Carnduff, JJ., appears in Khetra Nath v. Paru Beuri 9 Ind. Cas. 478 : 15 C.W.N. 387 : 13 C.L.J. 250. Both these learned Judges were agreed that the word application in the section under consideration did not include and was not meant to include suits such as that which has been brought in the present case. I think on both grounds this appeal must fail and must be dismissed with costs. The costs, which the respondents have to pay in respect of their unsuccessful application for security, will be set off against the costs they recover in the appeal. We assess the appellant's costs of that application at one gold mohur.
Calcutta High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1