cover image: The Calcutta Weekly 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  August 14  1922

Premium

20.500.12592/zq5q4h

The Calcutta Weekly 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 August 14 1922

1922

The Subordinate Judge of Faridpur held that 30.65 acres of land comprised in the Defendant's tenancy were wrongly resumed by the Government in a Diara proceeding in 1912 inasmuch as those lands formed the bed of the river 13arasia at the time of the Revenue Survey and were permanently settled land included in the teancy of Ake Defendant ; that notices of the Diara proceedings were served upon [...] On appeal by the Plaintiffs the Additional District Judge agreeing with the findings of the Court of first instance held that both the Plaintiffs and the Defendant seemed to be under the impression at the time of thDiara proceedings that there was nothing wrong in i. and they made no objection to the proceeings. [...] The Judge however was of opinion that the Plaintiffs were absentee landlords and the Defendant knew the lands better than the Plaintiffs and it was the duty of the Defenant to maintain his right and possession against trespassers and that the Defendant should bring a suit to set aside the Diara prceeding. [...] The Respondents contended that the act of the Government was a mere trespass and as the landlord was not bound to protect the tenant from unlawful eviction by a trespasser the Defendant was not entitled to any abatment of rent as against the Plaintiffs Held—That under the circumstances of the case when the Plaintiffs themselves had amitted the superior title of the Government to take possess [...] Upon these findings the Munsif held that though the Defendants might reside in Ranpur town bUt as the land in suit was outside the jurisdiction of the Rangpur Court the Munsif at Rangpur had no jurisdiction to try the rent suit and as such the decree and the sale of the Defendants' holding in that rent suit were void for want of jurisdiction and that the Plaintiffs acquired no title by his al
law
Pages
4
Published in
India
SARF Document ID
sarf.100104
Segment Pages Author Actions
The Calcutta Weekly 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 August 14 1922
cxlix-clii unknown view

Related Topics

All