BEJOY GOPAL MUKHERJI versus PRATUL CHANDRA GHOSE

Citation: [1953] 1 S.C.R. 930 · Decided: 28-01-1953 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
930 
SCPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1953] 
19.13 
Ganga Bux Singh on the death of th() latter and the 
7'hakurain llaj defendants were therefore as the heirs and legal repre-
flani 
sentatives of Ganga Bux Singh since deceased rightly 
and Other., 
entitled to the same. As the bequest was not 
v. 
conditional and did not lapse there ~onld be no ques-
Thakur Dwarka t' 
f 
lt' 
t 
t 
f 
' 
t 
· h 
N h ,.. h 
ion o any resu mg rus 
or o any rntes acy wit 
at 
ui.11rf 
• 
• 
and Others. 
respect to the remamder. 
The result therefore is that the appeal fails and must 
Bhagwat-i J. 
be dismissed \Vith costs. 
1953 
Ja;n, 28. 
Appeal dismissed. 
Agent for the appellants: R11;iinder Narain. 
Agent for the respondents: 0. P. Lal. 
BEJOY GOPAL MUKHERJI 
v. 
PRATUL CHANDRA GROSE. 
[MEHR CHAND MAHA.JAN, S. R. DAs and 
BHAGWA1'I JJ.] 
Landlord and tenant-Permanent tenancy-Evidence-Infer-
ence froin po.<!session froni generation to generation, transfers, erec-
tion of structu,res and other ci1:cnmsttinces-J1Iere increase of rent, 
effect of. 
Permanency of tenure does not necessarily imply both fixity 
of rent and fixity of occupation and the fact of enhancement of 
rent Joes not necessarily n1ilitate n,gainst the tenancy being a per-
manent one. 
When, therefore, in a previous suit the only <iues-
tion was whether the jama could be increasen and the jama was 
increased : 
Held, that this decision did not operate as res judicata on the 
tJ.U8sLio11 of permanency of the tenure in a snbsoquent suit for 
ejectment. 
Shankar Rao v. Sambhu Wallad (1940) 45 C.W.N. 57; Jogen· 
dra Krishna Banerji v. Szibashini Dassi (1940) 45 C.W.N. 590, 
Probhas Chandra Mallick v. Debe-ndra Nath Das (1939) 43 C.W.N. 
828, relied on. 
'Thiere possession for generations at a uniforin rent, or construe· 
tion of permanent structures hy itself may not be conclusive proof· 
of a permanent right but the cumulative effect of such facto 
coupled with other facts may lead to the inference of • permanent 
I
I 
I
• 
I . 
.. . 
• 
• 
S.C.]{. 
Sl1PRE.Y1E COURT REPORTS 
931 
1953 
tenancy. Where \twas not known how the earliest known tenant 
acquired the tenancy or \Yhat the nature of the tenancy was, the 
tenancy had passed from one person to another by inheritance or 
Bejoy Gopal 
by will or by transfer inter vivas, in the deeds of transfer the 
Mukherji 
transferee was given the right to enjoy from generation to genera,~ 
v. 
tion for ever, pucka structures and tanks had been constructed, P·ratul Chandra 
Ghost. 
and though there was an enhancement of rent in 1860, the rent 
had not been increased since then : 
Held, that all these circumstances put together irresistibli 
led to the conclusion of a permanency of the tenure. 
Probhas Chandra 1lfallik v. Debendra Nath Das (1939) 43 
0. W .N. 828 referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JuRrnDICTION: Civil Appeal No. ri:~ 
of 1952. 
Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated the 
20th January, 1950, of the High Court of Judicature tit 
Calcutta (Das and Gupta J,J.) in Appeal from Original 
Decree No. 141 of 1940 arising out of ,Judgment and 
Decree dated the 8th May, 1940, of the Court of the 
Subordinate Judge, lst Court of Zillah Howrah in Title 
Suit No. 38 of 1948. 
N. 0. Chatterjee (A. N. Sinha., with him) for tlw 
appellant. 
Panchanan Ghose (Syama Chamn Mitter and A./{. 
Dutt, with him) for the respondent. 
1953. January 28. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
DAs J. - This is an appeal by the plaintiff in an 
ejectment suit. His case was that defendant No. 1 
Pratul Chandra Ghose was >1 Ticca tern111t of premises 
Nos. 2 and 3, Watkin's Lane, Howrnh, comprising an 
area of 1 Bigha 19 Cottahs of land 011 a rent of 
Rs. 78 per annum under the landlords Kumar Sarat 
Kumar Roy and Bibhuti Bhusan Cluitterjee, pro Jonna 
defendants Nos. 2 and 3, that the plaintiff took a 
l\Iourashi l\Iokarari len,sc from these landlords on the 
23rd September, 19:37, and thereby hecame the immedi-
ate landlord of the said defendant and that the teu-
ancy was determined by a notice to quit dated the 
7th October, 1937. The trial Court, amongst other 
• 
932 
SUPREME COUR'r REPORTS 
[1953j 
things, found as a fact that the tenancY. of the defend-
ant Pratul Chandra Ghose was permanent, heritable 
Bejoy Chandra and transferable and was not liable to be determined 
Mukherji 
v. 
by notice. The plaintiff preferred an appeal to the 
1953 
Pratul Ohandm High Court but the High Court dismissed that appeal 
Ghose. 
holding, amongst other things,

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.