CHANDRANATH MUKHERJEE versus TUSHARIKA DEBI AND OTHERS

Citation: [1959] 1 S.C.R. 226 · Decided: 24-03-1958 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

226 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1959] 
• x95B 
adopted by the respondent in the present litigation. 
The main pleas raised by the respondent against the 
K8'havlal Lallu- binding character of the contracts themselves as well 
bhai Patel 
· 
t th 
th •t 
f L 
"d 
t 
· 
h 1 
.v. 
as agarns ·. e au or1 yo 
axm1 as o write t e etter 
Lalbhai Trikumlal for extension of time have been rejected by both the 
Milfa Ltd. 
courts below, and the only ground on which the res-
pondent succeeds before us was made on behalf of the 
Gajendragadkar J. respondent for the first time in appeal. Under these• 
circumstances we think the fair order as to costs would 
be that parties should bear their own costs throughout. 
The result is the appeal fails and is dismissed but there 
would be no order as to costs throughout. 
x958 
klarch ,4• 
• 
• 
• 
Appeal dismissed . 
CHANDRANATH MUKHERJEE 
v. 
TUSHARIKA DEBI AND OTHERS 
• 
(B. P. SINHA, JAFER IMAM and SuBBA RAO, JJ.) 
• Permanent Tenure-Right of successor to recover arrears of rent 
by suit-Notice of sitccession to landlord within six months, if 
mandatory-Mutation in landlord's rent roll-Mode of proof-
Bengal Tenancy Act (Act VIII of.,r885) as amended by Bengal Act 
JV· of r928, ss. r5, r6. 
The time limit of six months provided by s. 15 of the Bengal 
Tenancy Act within \vhich a tenure-holder has to give notice of 
his succession to the landlord or have his name mutated in his 
rent-roJI is not mandatory but directory in character and the,l)nly 
effect which non-observance of that time-limit can have under • 
s. 16 of the Act, is to postpone his remedy to recover arrears of 
rent by way of suit till such time when he performs the duty cast 
upon him by s. 15 .,f the Act, but it cannot, by itself, bar the 
remedy for all time to come., Section 16 is a penal provision and 
must be subjected to its statutory limitation and the penalty it 
• imposes cannot be extended by implicati<'m. 
Consequently, in a case where the sepatnidar resisted the 
durpatnidars' suit for recovery of arrears of rent ou the ground, 
inter alia, that they had not got themselves mutated in the fand-
)ord's records under s. 15 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and as such 
• 
• 
• • 
• 
I 
I 
S.C.R. 
~UPREME COURT REPORTS 
227 
the suit was barred under s. 16 of the Act and the courts below 
found on the evidence ad duced by the durpatnidars that the 
landlord had accepted rents from them and granted receipts after 
ordering mutation of their names in the rent-roll : 
Held, that the courts below were right in holding in favour 
of the durpatnidars that there was the necessary mutation in the 
landlord's rent-roll. 
• 
The factum of mutation in the landlord's rent-roll can be 
proved not only by the production of original rent-roll or its 
certified copy but, failing these, also by other secondary proof of 
mutation. 
• 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
39of1955. · 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated August 
28, 1953, of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from 
Original Decree No. 97 of 1950 arising out of the judg-
ment and decree dated April 27, 1950, of the Court of 
Second Sub-Judge of Zillah Hooghly in Rent Suit No. 3 
of 1949. 
B. Bagchi and P. K. Ghosh, for the appellant. 
N. C. Chatterjee and D. N. Mukherjee, for the res-
pondents. 
· 
1958. March 24. 
The following Judgment of the 
Court was delivered by 
' 
, • 
SINHA J.-The main controversy in this appeal on 
a certificate granted by the High Court of Calcutta, 
· against the concurrent dec!sions of the courts below, 
centres rqund the true interpretation and effect of 
.ss, 15 and 16 of the Bengal Tenancy Act-Act VIII 
of 1885-(hereinafter referred to as the Act). · The 
courts below have substantially decreed the plaintiff's 
suit• for arrears of rent in respect of a se-patni tenure. 
• Hence, the appeal by the defendant. 
The plaintiff's ancestor, Nirmal Chandra Benerjee, 
was a durpatnidar und~r the patnidar in respect of the 
tenure in question. 
He died leaving him surviving, 
his three sons-Sat)'a Ranjan, Satya Jiban and Satya 
Kiron-who became the durpatindars in respect of the 
tenv-re by succession, and there is no dispute that they 
were so mutated in the superior landlord's office. There 
was a partition suit between ·them in the court of the 
•• 
• 
Chandranath 
Mukherjee 
v .• 
Tusharika Debi 
&- Others 
Sinha ]. 
• ' 
. 
Chandranath 
Mukherjee 
• v. 
Tusharika Debi 
& Others 
Sinha ]. 
• 
. 
' 
228 
SUPREME COURT REPOR'OO 
[1959] 
s

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