Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges

    Surya Kanta Ghattak v. Ananda Mohan Chatterjee

    Woodroffe, J.:— The question in this case is whether or not the plaintiff is barred from recovering rent in respect of one of the properties in suit by reason of the fact that he has not been registered under the provisions of Section 78 of the Land Registration Act, 7 of 1876. Such registration is not necessary if it can be shown that his case falls within the provisions of S. 81 which speaks of written contracts. The learned Judge was of opinion, though as he says with some doubt, that S. 81 did not avail the plaintiff in this case because, as he was disposed to read that section, it referred to a contract between the proprietor himself and his tenants, that is the parties themselves, and not to a contract entered into either between the predecessors of the parties or between a successor of one of the parties and another original party.

    2. In the present case, there was a registered kabuliyat executed by Ananda Mohan Chattopadhya in favour of Amrita Lal Bandopadhya. The property was sold to the father of the plaintiff and it then descended to the plaintiff. The defendant is a tenant. By the terms of that kabuliyat, the contract is one which is entered into not merely between the executant and recipient of the kabuliyat but between them and their respective heirs and successors.

    3. It must therefore I think be taken in this case that there is a contract between the plaintiff as successor of Amrita Lal Bandopadhya and the defendant. There being therefore a contract between the parties, the case falls within the provisions of S. 81 and registration was not necessary.

    4. It is suggested that there should be an issue tried as to whether or not, as stated to us now, the sum of Rs. 20 was remitted of the rent and it is said that the lands of property No. 3 were held free of rent, but there is no trace of any such issue having been raised in either of the Courts below. Therefore there can be no remand upon this question now.

    5. The appeal therefore is decreed with costs in all Courts.

    D. Chatterjee, J.:— I agree.

    V.B/R.K

    6. Appeal decreed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Surya Kanta Ghattak v. Ananda Mohan Chatterjee
    (May 20, 1914)