SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1966 Supreme(Cal) 182

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
B. MUKHERJEE
ABDUL HAMID - Appellant
Versus
DURGA CHARAN DAS - Respondent
Civil Revn. Case 359  Of  1961
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 06, 1966

Advocates Appeared:
Bijan Bihari Das Gupta, JHANENDRANATH BAKSHI

A Mahomedan co-owner is entitled to sue a trespasser for the benefit of all and that the death of two of the appellants did not affect the rights of the surviving appellants.

Headnote:

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - Abatement of appeal - Death of two out of five appellants during pendency of appeal - Appeal against deceased appellants abating - Whether entire appeal abates - Mahomedan co-owners suing for eviction of trespasser - Death of two co-owners during pendency of appeal - Whether entire appeal abates.

Fact of the Case:

Five Mahomedan co-owners filed a suit for recovery of possession of a plot of land from a trespasser. The suit was dismissed by the trial court and the plaintiffs appealed. During the pendency of the appeal, two of the appellants died and no steps were taken for substitution of their legal representatives. The appellate court held that the entire appeal abated.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the entire appeal did not abate. The court held that a Mahomedan co-owner is entitled to sue a trespasser for the benefit of all and that the death of two of the appellants did not affect the rights of the surviving appellants.

Issues: Whether the entire appeal abated due to the death of two of the appellants during the pendency of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appeal did not abate in its entirety because the suit was for recovery of possession from a trespasser and not for recovery of joint possession with the defendant. The court also held that the surviving appellants were entitled to a decree for joint possession with the defendant, if they succeeded in proving that the defendant was not a tenant, but a trespasser.

Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the appellate court and directed the court to hear the appeal in the light of the directions contained in the judgment.

B. MUKHERJI, J.

( 1 ) IF two of the five appellants die during the pendency of their appeal arising out of a suit instituted by them for recovery of Khas possession of a certain plot of land, reckoning the sole defendant as a trespasser thereon, and if the appeal against the two dead appellants abates, no steps having been taken for substitution of their legal representatives, will the appeal as a whole abate? That is the main question debated in this revisional application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code 5 of 1908 at the instance of the three surviving plaintiffs appellants. The learned Subordinate Judge, seized of such appeal, holds, the appeal as a whole abates. Mr Bijan Behari Das Gupta, appearing for the appellants petitioners, submits, it does not. Mr. Jnanendra Nath Bakshi, appearing for the respondent opposite party, contends for the view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge.

( 2 ) THE facts which have led up to this revisional petition need not be referred to further than as follows: the land in controversy is plot No. 952 under Khatian No. 581 of mouza Maheshmati within the jurisdiction of Englishbazar Municipality and police station: Englishbazar being the name by which the municipality and police station of the town of Maldah are known. A plot as this admeasures 0113 acre of land: vide the relevant Khatian, exhibit A. One Dwark Chandra Das held it as a Korfa tenant on a rent of Rs. 10 under Sahadutunessa. In an action in ejectment brought by her it was suit No. 239 of 1938--a compromise decree, exhibit 1, came to be recorded on February 23, 1939. By virtue thereof, eviction of Dwarak was ordered. But its effect was postponed. Dwarak having been given a grace period of three years: 1346 to 1348 B. S. , during which he was permitted to slay where he was, namely, in the land in controversy, on payment of Rs. 10 a year as rent (Khajna ). The further stipulation was that should Dwarak fail to quit by 1348's end, Sahadutunessa would be able to put her decree for eviction to execution. Dwarak did not quit, as he had agreed to do, on the expiry of 1348 B. S. Sahadutunessa was about to lew execution of the compromise decree, as indeed she was entitled to do in terms thereof But in the end she took pity on her quondam tenant, as is stated on her behalf, and allowed him to slay on for his life as a licensee on a licence fee of Rs 10. While in occupation so, and running a shop there, he died in 1949. Durga Charan Das, the sole opposite party before me, is his son. His father's licence having been no more, he was asked to quit time and again. But he refused. Hence the suit on September 27, 1951, by Sahadutunessa's five legal representatives two sons and three daughters-- (Sahadutunessa having died meanwhile) for recovery of possession of plot No, 952 after eviction of Durga, a mere trespasser, therefrom. The suit failed in the Court of first instance. An appeal taken against that came to little. The first Court, as also the Court of appeal, held that the suit was barred by Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. On the question of tenancy or licence, the first Court found that the position of Dwarak, and after his death, of Durga continued "in the land as of a tenant"; whereas the appellate Court confined its finding to Dwarak having been a tenant. In a second appeal taken to this Court, Purushol-tam Chatterjee, J. reversed the decision of the Courts below on Section 47 having stood between the plaintiffs and their success. More, his Lordship directed a remit to the lower appellate Court with a view to coming to a finding as to the status of the defendant, making it clear: "if the Court finds that he is still a tenant the suit will be dismissed. If the Court finds that the defendant is not a tenant, the suit should be decreed. " during the carriage of the appeal on remit, this question of abatement arose. The two daughters of Sahadutunessa. Bibi Jobeda Khatoon (appellant No. 3) and Bibi Jinnatanessa (appellant










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top