Last Updated on
Macpherson and Ameer Ali, JJ.
1. The appellant brought this suit, to eject the defendant as a trespasser. The defendant- contended that the plaintiff had no right to bring the suit, as he is a mere benamidar of Guru Churn Dutt, under whom and others the defendant admits that he is a tenant. Both the Courts have found that the appellant is a mere benamidar of Guru Churn Dutt, and that he cannot maintain the suit. This is quite in accordance with the decision of this Court in Hari Gobindo Adhikari v. Akhoy Coomar Mozoomdar (1889) I.L.R. 16 Cal. 364 in which it was held that a person who was a benamidar for one of the defendants could not maintain a suit for a declaration of his right to, and for possession of, immoveable property; such a person cannot, it seems to us, any the more maintain a suit for ejectment. He has neither title nor possession. Our attention has been called to a recent decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Nand Kishore Lai v. Ahmad Ala (1896) I.L.R. 18 All. 69. In that case it was held, dissenting from the decision of this Court, that a benamidar can maintain a suit of the kind mentioned. We cannot follow that decision as we think the case in this Court referred to above was rightly decided, and is in accordance with the previous decisions on the same point. The only contention raised in this appeal is that the appellant, assuming him to be a benamidar for some one else, can maintain the suit, and as that fails, the appeal must be dismissed with costs.