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

1933 Supreme(Cal) 136

Harendra Nath Chaudhury – Appellant
Versus
Dwijendra Nath Banerji – Respondent


JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal by defendant 2 (one of the several cosharer-landlords of a tenancy), in a suit u/s 106, Ben. Ten. Act, instituted by the tenants plaintiffs, for correction of entries in the finally published Record of Rights. The Assistant Settlement Officer who tried the suit directed the correction of entries as mentioned in his judgment; and the decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer was affirmed by the learned Special Judge of the 24-Parganas, on appeal. The appeal before the Special Judge preferred by the appellant in this Court was dismissed on the ground that it was time-barred in respect of respondent 7, and that rent could not be altered in the absence of some of the cosharer landlords. The learned Judge in the Court below has held that the appeal before him had abated so far as respondent 7, one of the cosharer landlords, was concerned owing to the non-substitution of the heirs of that respondent within the time allowed by law.

2. Respondent 7 was made a party to the appeal before the Court below; it has however been contended before us that the said respondent was not a necessary party to the appeal, and that in view of the provisions contained in Order

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