LexRAJA BHUPENDRA NARAIN SINGHA BAHADUR versus MAHARAJ BAHADUR SINGH AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1952 Mahabir Gape and Others. v. Harbans Narain Singh and Others. Chandrasek_hara · Aiyar /. 1952 April 2. 782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1952] Lastly, it was urged that the ijara by Mst. Anaro Kuer was admittedly an oral transaction and there was no proof of any prohibition against the settlement with tenants so far as her share (3.97 acres) was concerned and that the rights of the parties as regards this area .would stand on a different footing from the rights in respect of the 4 acres and 29 cents belonging to the plaintiff first party. This point was not taken in the courts below where the two ijaras given to Lakhandeo Singh were dealt with as if they were part and parcel of one and the same transaction, the rights and liabilities, whatever they were, being common to both. We cannot allow the poiilt to be taken now. The result is that the High: Court's decree 1s. confirmed and the appeal is dismissed with: costs of the plaintiffs-respondents. There will be no order as; to costs of the other respondents. Appeal dismissed. Agent for the appellants: S. P. Varma. Agent for the respondents Nos. 1 to 9: M. M Sinha. Agent for the respondents Nos. 11 to 16 :. K_. L. Mehta. RAJA BHUPENDRA NARAIN SINGHA BAHADUR ti. MAHARAJ BAHADUR SINGH AND OTHERS (Civil Appeals Nos. 68 to 92 of 1951). [MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR and V 1v1AN Bo SE JJ.] Equitable set-off-Suit by patnidar against zemindar for posses- sion of land with mesne f"ofits-Decree t"n favour of patnidar- Claim by 'zemindar to set off against m.esne profits rent_, revenue and· cesses which accl'ited after deUvCry of t:ossession-Maintainability. : Where a patnidar has obtained a decree against his zcmindar · for' possessiori .of reSU1ned challkld?ri chakran lands with mesnc profits from· the date on which · the zemihdar wrongfully took. \. 1 - ... S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 783 possession of them, the zemindar is not entitled to deduct by -1952 way of equitable set-off from the amount of mesne profits pay- . ---- able by him under the decree, the amounts due to him on account Ra1a B_~uP.endra of rent, revenue and cesses for a period subsequent to the date Narain Szngha of delivery_ of possession of the lands inasmuch _as the two cross Bahadur demands do not arise out of the same transaction. The transac- .-v. tion which led to the plaintiff's demand for mes_ne profits resulted • Maharaj from the defendant's wrongful act as trespasser, while the Bahadur Singh transaction ·which gave rise to the zemindar's demand arose out and Others. of- the relationship of landlord and tenant and the obligations resulting therefrom. Mahajan J. _ CrvrL APPELLATE JrnusmcTION : Appeals from the judgments arid -decrees dated the 23rd February, 1945, of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta (Akram and Blank JJ.) in Second Appeals Nos. 861 to 885 of 1939 from the judgments and decrees dated the 16th December, 1938, of the Court of the District Judge, Birbhum, in Title Appeals Nos. 23 'to 47 of 1938. Sitaram Bannerjee (Arun Kumar Dutta and Amiya Kumar· Mukherjea, with him) for the appellant in Civil Appeals Nos. 68 to 74 of 1951. Urukramdas Chakravarthy (S. 'fl/. Mukherjee, with him) for the respondent No .. 1. in Civil Appeals Nos. 68 to 74 of 1951. - ·- Sitaram Bannerjee (Arun Kutnar Dutta and Amiya Kumar Mukherjea, with him) for the appellant in Civil Appeals Nos. 75 to 92 of 1951. Panchanan Chose (Chandra Nath Mukherji, with him) for the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 in Civil Appeals Nos. 75 to 92 of 1951. -~ 1952. April 2. The Judgment of the Court was .. delivered by - - MAHAJAN J.-These appeals are directed against the judgment and decrees of the High Court of Judi- cature at Calcutta, dated 23rd February, 1945, revers- ing the judgment and decrees passed· by the District Judge -of Birbhum dated - 16th December, 1938. The principal questions for determination are the same m 102 1952 Raja Bhupendra Narain Singha Bahadur v. Maharaj IJahadur Singh and Others. Mahajan /. 784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1952) all of them and can be conveniently disposed of by one judgment. It is necessary to set out briefly the history of this half a century old litigation. The seven suits out of which arise Appeals Nos. 68 to 74 were filed iH September, 1904, by Maharaja Bahadur Singh, in the court of the different Munsifs at Rampurhat, against Raja
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.