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


Calcutta High Court
Rudra Narain Maiti vs Natobar Jana on 11 June, 1913
Equivalent citations: (1914) ILR 41 Cal 52
Author: Jenkins
Bench: Jenkins, Mookerjee


JUDGMENT

Jenkins, C.J.

1. The only point that arises on this appeal is whether the plaintiff’s suit is barred by Article 3 in the third Schedule to the Bengal Tenancy Act. This is an Article which, after a lapse of a certain time, deprives the plaintiff of his right to come to Court for the purpose of vindicating a claim which is his, and therefore it must be clearly made out that any particular case falls within its terms. We recently had occasion to enter a protest against extending the terms of this Article by use of figures of speech and metaphors L.P.A. No. 44 of 1911, decided on the 30th May, 1913. What we have to see in each case is whether in fact there has been such dispossession as the Article requires. That dispossession, it is conceded, must be by the landlord. The Subordinate Judge, untramelled by the various authorities which can be cited, one way or the other, came to the conclusion on the facts that there had been no dispossession by the landlord. I see no reason why the High Court should interfere with that finding. It is a finding for which there is foundation in the evidence, and, in my opinion, it was erroneous to disturb it. We must, therefore, reverse the judgment and restore the decree of the lower Appellate Court.

2. The appellant before us must have the costs of the two appeals in the High Court.

Mookerjee, J.

3. concurred.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

66 queries in 0.285 seconds.