The Calcutta Weekly Notes Law Notes and Notes of Cases of the Calcutta High Court and of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the English Law Courts Monday March 21 1910

Then again admitting that the Hindu law is applicable in determining the nature of the property for the purposes of the law of limitation it is difficult to find out in that law any authority for the prposition that a nibandha is immoveable property not to speak of the vagueness and uncertainty attaching to the meaning of the word itself. [...] It was clear that when a suit was brought in the name of a nominal party by the real party in interest it was a distinct violation of the spirit of the rule that the real party should not be fully bound by the judicial determination of the litigtion and so it was declared that the real parties to the suit were parties within the meaning of the rule ; Calhoun's Lessee v. Dunning (Pa. [...] The rlief which was sought for in the plaint was to have the arrangement which was carried out under the terms of the decree of the 15th Noveber 1904 reversed and to bring into hotchpot for the purpose of making a partition the prperties which since that arrangement had been in the exclusive possession of one or other of the Defendants. [...] The Plaintiff the Mahanth of the Mahabodhi Temple in this suit prayed that it be declared that he was the sole owner of the rest-house and that none of the Defendants had any right to hold possession of it or to exclude the Plaitiff therefrom and that the possession of the same be restored to the Plaintiff by ejecting the Defendants thereform that secondly that the Dfendants Nos. [...] In the result the decree of the Subordinate Judge was modified and a decree passed to the following effect :- That the suit be decreed as follows that it be declared that the Mahant is the incumbent in possession of the land on which the rest-house stands and that none of the Defendants has any right to hold possession of it and Defendant No.