Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.27 seconds)Arsadulla And Ors. vs Munseb Ali on 2 April, 1912
Under raiyats form a different class of tenants, and in the recent case of Arsadullah v. Munsab Ali 14 Ind. Cas. 349 it has been held that, except where it has been used expressly (as in Sections 113, 121 and 122) or by necessary implication (as in Section 89) with reference to an under-raiyat, the word holding" has in other sections of the Act the meaning assigned to it in Section 3(9) of the Act, i.e., refers to land held by a raiyat. Section 49 of the Act, which provides for the ejectment of a under-raiyat, does not refer to any holding' of an under-raiyat. It merely refers to ejectment of an under-raiyat.
Panchanan Banerji vs Rai Kumar Guha on 11 July, 1892
See Panchanan Banerji v. Raj Kumar Guha 19 C. 610; Mutungini Dasi v. Ram Das Mullick 7 C.W.N. 93; Gobinda Chandra Pal v. Hamidulla Bhuian 7 C.W.N. 670 Jognesh Prokash Ganguli v. Maniraddi 35 C. 417. It is true the first case related to a "tenure" andnot a "holding," in the second case the kabulyat was executed before the Bengal Tenancy Act, and it is not clear whether the subject-matter of the last case was a "tenure" or holding. But the distinction between a tenure" and a "holding" does not affect the present case for reasons already stated and I refer to those cases only for the purpose of showing that a separate tenancy was held to be constituted in those cases in undivided shares of land under the circumstances stated above.
Matangini Dasi And Anr. vs Jogendra Chunder Mullick And Ors. on 28 July, 1891
See Panchanan Banerji v. Raj Kumar Guha 19 C. 610; Mutungini Dasi v. Ram Das Mullick 7 C.W.N. 93; Gobinda Chandra Pal v. Hamidulla Bhuian 7 C.W.N. 670 Jognesh Prokash Ganguli v. Maniraddi 35 C. 417. It is true the first case related to a "tenure" andnot a "holding," in the second case the kabulyat was executed before the Bengal Tenancy Act, and it is not clear whether the subject-matter of the last case was a "tenure" or holding. But the distinction between a tenure" and a "holding" does not affect the present case for reasons already stated and I refer to those cases only for the purpose of showing that a separate tenancy was held to be constituted in those cases in undivided shares of land under the circumstances stated above.
Gholam Mohiuddin Hossein vs Khairan on 6 January, 1904
13. The learned District Judge relied on the case of Gholam Mohiuddin v. Khairan 31 C. 786 in support of the proposition that where a tenant is originally let into possession of land by all the co sharers, a co-sharer landlord is not competent to obtain a partial ejectment of the tenant unless the tenancy is determined by all the co-sharers. I entirely agree with the above view. But in that case, there was no separate kabulyat for a term, as in the present, by the tenant in favour of each of the landlords subsequent to the original lease, agreeing to quit the land on the expiry of the term. In that case, the original lease was subsisting at the time of the suit, here the original lease had been put an end to by the subsequent kabulyats.
1