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

1953 Supreme(Cal) 211

SEN
Ramdhari Mahato – Appellant
Versus
Ranjit Kumar Banerjee – Respondent


Advocates:
Ranjit Kumar Banerjee and Soumendra Nath Mukherjee, for Petitioner; Satya Charan Pain, for Opposite Party.

JUDGMENT :- This is a revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution against an order passed by Sri Syamadas Chatterjee, Subordinate Judge, Howrah. A suit numbered as Title Suit 347 of 1948 was filed by Opposite party No. 1 for ejectment of the petitioner from a piece of land occupied by him as tenant. When the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, came into force, the suit was tried as a miscellaneous case for ejectment under the provisions of the Calcutta Thika Tenacy Act and the ejectment was allowed by an order of a Munsif, Howrah, acting as a Controller under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act. There was an appeal filed under the provisions of Section 27(1)(b) of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act 1949, to the District Judge, Howrah. The District Judge by an order dated the 7th December, 1951 transferred the appeal to Sri Syamadas Chatterjee, Subordinate Judge for disposal. Sri Syamadas Chatterjee heard the appeal on merits and dismissed the same on 3rd April, 1952.

2. In this revisional application filed by the petitioner, the only point urged is that the learned Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction because in view of the provisions of Section 27(2) and (3) of the Calcutta






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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top