KANAI LAL SUR versus PARAMNIDHI SADHUKHAN

Citation: [1958] 1 S.C.R. 360 · Decided: 10-09-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: NATWARLAL HARILAL BHAGWATI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

360 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1958[ 
1957 
and third counts. As a result, the total imprisonment 
Moborik Ali Ahmed Which has been awarded against the appellant would 
v. 
be a period of three years and ten months. We are 
Thi,!'t,~y 01 
not prepared to say that the discretion of the trial 
court in awarding 
that sentence has been wrongly 
Jogonnadhodas J. exercised. 
1957 
September 10 
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 
Appeal dismissed. 
KANAI LAL SUR 
v. 
PARAMNIDHI SADHUKHAN 
(BHAGWATI, S.K. DAS and GAJENDRAGADKAR JJ.) 
Thika tenant-Decree for ejectment-Execution application-
If lies in civil Coirt-Welfare legis/ation-lnterpretation-Ca/c11tta 
Thika Senancy Act, 1949 (W. B. Tl of 1949), s. 5(1). 
Respondent" obtained a decree for 
ejectment against the 
appellant, a thika tenant, and filed an application for execution 
of the decree before the civil Court, Appellant resisted 
the 
application on the ground that inview of s. 5(1) of the Calcutta 
Thika Tenancy Act, 1949. the civil Court had no jurisdiction to 
entertain the application. Section 5(1) provides that a landlord 
wishing to eject a thika tenant on the grounds specified in s. 3 
shall apply to the Controller in that behalf. 
Held, that s. 5(1) did not apply to a case where the landlord 
had already obtained a decree for ejectment against his 
thika 
tenant and consequently the civil 
Court had jurisdiction 
to 
entertain the execution application. 
The operative provisions of welfare legislation should receive 
a beneficent construction from the Courts. But the words used 
in a statute must be interpreted in their plain grammatical 
meaning and it is only when such words are capable of two 
constructions that the question of adopting the construction which 
is more consistent with the policy of the Act arises. 
· Heydo11's case, (1984) 3 Co. Rep. 8, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal 
No. 291 of 1955. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated March 29 1955, of the Calcutta High Court 
in appeal from Appellate Order No. 134 of 1954, 
affirming the appeal against the judgement and order 
S. C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
361 
dated July 29, 1954, of the Court of the District Judge 
of 24-Parganas in Misc. Appeal No. 87of1954, arising 
out of the order of the 1st Additional Court of the 
Munsif at Sealdah dated February 2, 1954, in Misc. 
Judicial Case No. 96 of 1953. 
· 
N.C. Chatterjee 
and S.N. ,lfukerjee, 
for 
the 
appellant. 
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and D. N. Muke1jee, for 
the respondent. 
1957 September 10. The following Judgment of 
the Court was delivered 
by 
1957 
Kanai Lal Sur 
v. 
Paramnidhi 
Sadhukhan 
GAJENDRAGADKAR J.-This is an appeal by special Gajendragadkar J. 
leave in execution proceedings and the short point 
which the appellant has raised before us is that, under 
s. 5(1) of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, J949 (West 
Bengal II of 1949) as amended by the Calcutta Thika 
Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1953 (West Bengal VI 
of 1953), execution proceedings taken out by the decree-
holder against him could be entertained only. by the 
controller and not by the civil courts. 
This point 
arises in this way. The appellant is a thika tenant in 
respect of a portion of the premises No. 28, R.G. Kar 
Road in Calcutta. In Suit No. 46 of 1948 a decree for 
ejectment was passed against him and in favour of the 
respondent on March 16, 1949. 
This 
decree was 
challenged by the appellant by preferring an appeal 
before the District Court and a second appeal before 
the High Court at Calcutta; but both those appeals 
failed and the decree for ejectment passed by the trial 
court was confirmed. Then followed sev'eral proceed-
ings between the parties and the course of litigation 
between them turned out to be protracted and tortuous. 
Ultimately on May 22, 1953, the respondent filed an 
execution case before 
the First Additional Court, 
Sealdah (Title Execution Case No. 34 of 1953). By 
this application the respondent claimed 
that the 
possession of the property covered by the decree should 
be delivered to him. Thereupon the appellant field a 
Miscellaneous Judicial Case under s. 47 of Code of 
Civil Procedure in the court raising several objections 
to the decree-holder's claimforexecution(Miscellaneous 
1957 
Kanai Lal Sur 
v. 
Pararnnidhi 
Sadhukhan 
362 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1958] 
Judicial Case No. 96 of 1953). This case was dismissed 
by the executing court on February 2, 1954. A mis-
cellaneous ap

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