The Calcutta Law Journal January 1 1912

The plaintiff sued the defendant her husband’s brother for damages for use and occupation of a portion of the plaintiff’s house on the allegation that the defendant entered Into possession by the plaintiff’s leave and license. [...] The Small Cause Court Judge held that in a suit like this the defendant was entitled to plead justertie and he dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff’s husband having sold away his share in the house to a third party though long before the defendant’s occupation the title to the property vested in the purchaser and the plaintiff had no title to maintain the suit. [...] 116 of the Evidence Act the defendant cannot be permitted to deny that the plaintiff had a title to the possession of the house at a time when the license was given to enter into possession and in the circumstances a suit for damages for use and occupation would lie Haus Jnanendranath Bose and Sitaram Banerjee for the Petitioner. [...] The decree-holder was entitled to execute the decree against the joint ancestral family property and not simply against the share of the father and grandfather. [...] The judgment-debtor put in objection to the effect that it wasarranged between the parties subsequent to the compromise decree and at the time of the previous execution that lie should make two defaults in order to give the decree-holler an opportunity of executing his decree so that property A instead of being sold out of Court according to the stipulation in the compromise should be sold in