Posted On by &filed under Calcutta High Court, High Court.

Calcutta High Court
Brojo Sundari Debia vs Mahomed Abbas Mondul on 17 March, 1891
Equivalent citations: (1891) ILR 18 Cal 360
Bench: W C Petheram, Kt., Pigot, O’Kinealy, Macpherson, Ghose


Petheram, Kt., C.J., Pigot, O’Kinealy, Macpherson and Ghose, JJ.

1. The contention that dur-putni tenures are included within the terms of Clause (e) of Section 195 of the Bengal Tenancy Act cannot, we think, be supported. The words “in so far as it relates to those tenures” must, we think, be treated as expressly limiting the provision to enactments relating to putnis properly and strictly so called, and as intended to exclude those which relate to tenures, which, although resembling putnis, as dur-putnis, etc., are not strictly putnis, not possessing all the qualities of them. We answer the question in the affirmative, and the appellants are therefore entitled to have the suit dismissed as against them with costs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

93 queries in 0.155 seconds.