Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.15 seconds)
Niladri Mahanti vs Bichitranand Roy on 27 May, 1910 cites

Kristo Chunder Ghose And Ors. vs Raj Kristo Bandyopadhya And Ors. on 8 July, 1885

5. It is next said that the plaintiffs cannot rely on the title so acquired, or, as it has been expressed, that he has not got a locus standi. I view the expression locus standi with some apprehension, because I do not pretend to know what it precisely means in this connection. Does it mean that defendant No. 9 and the plaintiffs acquired no title because there was no registration? If that be the contention, then there is a complete answer to this view in the decision of Mr. Justice Wilson and Mr. Justice Beverley in Kristo Chunder Ghose v. Raj Kristo Bandyopadhya (1885) I.L.R. 12 Calc.
Calcutta High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Kedarnath Mitter vs Surendro Deb Roy And Ors. on 30 April, 1883

24, and of the Privy Council in Luckhinarain Mitter v. Khettro Pal Singh Roy (1873) 13 B.L.R. 146, 156, 20 W.R. 380, where, in regard to the effect of similar provisions in Regulation VIII of 1819 for registration of transfer of tenures in the zemindar's sherista, their Lordships say--"The plaintiffs were assignees of the darpatni talook, and though the transfer was not registered, they had the right and were compelled to deposit the amount of rent due to the zemindar in order to protect their own interest." If, on the other hand, it is meant that the plaintiffs have no right to sue, then this contravenes the general principle that a man in possession of property lawfully acquired by him, but invaded by another, has a right to sue in respect of trespass on it. Whether he will succeed or not is a different question; but the mere fact that he does not succeed does not mean that he has no locus standi. I can understand its being said that a person has no locus standi where the Legislature in effect so provides, as, for instance, in Section 106 of Act X of 1859, which is limited in its operation to sales under Section 105 of transferable tenures in execution of decrees for arrears of rent. It is there provided that while third parties claiming to be the lawfull possessors of the under-tenure may apply for stay of sale and enquiry, no transfer of the under-tenure, which by the provisions of the Act or any other law for the time being in force is required to be registered in the sherista of the zemindar or superior tenant; should be recognized, unless it has been so registered, or unless sufficient cause for non-registration be shown to the satisfaction of the Collector. This is a distinct provision of the law that, notwithstanding the title acquired by transfer, it shall not be recognised for the particular purpose contemplated by that section. But the present suit is not one which comes within Section 106, and there is no similar provision in relation to a sale under Section 108, so that the contention that the present plaintiffs have no locus standi is not one that can properly be applied to the circumstances of this case. But it is contended that there are two decisions of this Court by which we are required to hold that the plaintiffs have no locus standi.
Calcutta High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1