9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Limitation 2. Validity of Rent Decree 3. Reality of Tenancies 4. Identity of Lands Detailed Analysis: 1. Limitation: The court addressed the issue of whether the suit was barred by limitation. It was argued that the plaintiff's claim was time-barred. The court referred to the decision in *Brojendra Kishore Roy v. Bharat Chandra Roy* which established that when property is attached under Section 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it remains in legal custody for the benefit of the true owner. The court noted that less than twelve years had elapsed between the confirmation of the rent sale on 18th February 1904 and the attachment by the Magistrate on 28th September 1912. Thus, the plea of limitation was overruled as untenable. 2. Validity of Rent Decree: The validity of the rent decree made on 26th August 1903 was challenged on the grounds that three persons interested in the tenancy were not represented in the rent suit. These individuals were Asutosh Maiti, Saratchandra Maiti, and Bimala. - Asutosh Maiti: It was contended that Asutosh, who had attained majority, was misdescribed as a minor. The court held that despite this misdescription, Asutosh had notice of the suit and was bound by the decree as he allowed his uncle to conduct the defense on his behalf. - Saratchandra Maiti: It was argued that Saratchandra was not properly represented as his guardian did not consent to act as guardian ad litem. The court concluded that under the Civil Procedure Code of 1882, the court could presume the consent of a certificated guardian unless explicitly declined. Thus, Saratchandra was deemed to have been represented. - Bimala: The court found no substantial evidence to show that Bimala was in joint enjoyment of her husband's interest in the leasehold property. The court concluded that the tenancy was adequately represented by the defendants in the rent suit, and the decree operated as a valid rent decree. 3. Reality of Tenancies: The court examined whether the tenancies set up by the second set of defendants were real or fictitious. The Subordinate Judge had found these tenancies to be fictitious, created to keep down the amount of cess and to save a fragment in the event of an execution sale. The court concurred with this finding, noting the lack of satisfactory evidence of possession by the alleged lessees and the absence of testimony from the female defendants and key witnesses. The court upheld the Subordinate Judge's conclusion that the tenancies were fictitious. 4. Identity of Lands: The appellants challenged the identity of the lands in suit with those comprised in the lease of 10th November 1874 and the sale certificate of 18th February 1904. The Subordinate Judge had stated that the disputed lands were admittedly included in the tenure and the sale certificate. The court found no proof that this statement was made under a misapprehension and held that the appellants could not re-open the question. The court also noted that upon hearing the appellants on the merits, there was no substance in the contention that the lands in suit were not included in the lease and the sale certificate. Conclusion: The court affirmed the decree of the Subordinate Judge and dismissed the appeal with costs.
|
