LexSUBODH GOPAL BOSE versus AJIT KUMAR HALDAR AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
196J. Murar!ra Shyam ,Ram Eum:ir •• ll.Hp Sinth Rathor1 DIU J. 1911 May 7. 590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. have already explained what is meant by the word "copy" in sub·s. (3) ofs. 81 and we are of the view t:1at the defects pointed out on behalf of the appel- lant are not of such a character as to invalidate the copy which was served on tlie appellant in the present case. In conclusion we have to point out that we allowed one Dr; Z. A. Ahmed to intervene in these appeals ·on the grounds mentioned in his petition dated April 4, 1963. The intervener supported the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant. We have fully dealt with those arguments in this judgment and nothing further need be said about the intervener's petition. For the reasons in these two appeals. dismissed with costs. given above; we see no merit The· appeals are accordingly A. ppeals diamisstd. SUBODH GOPAL BOSE ti, AJIT KUMAR HALDAR AND OTHERS (B. P. SINHA CJ., J.C. SHAH and N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR JJ.) Reveftue Sale-Suit for rteovery of tJO"Mlion °". a""ul- ment nf eneumbranee-Exeeution of decre• during the pmdeney of appeal but before amendment of law-Abatemont of aui!- BeMgal Land Revenue Sales Act, 1859 (XI of 1859), 1. 37- Bengal Land Revenue Sales (West Be,.gal Ame11dmmt) Act, 1950 (W .B. VII of 1950), "· 4,7. The appellant purchased a Touzi at a revenue •ale help under the Bengal Land Revenue Sales Act, 1859, annuUep 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 591 the encumbrances under s. 37 of the Act and sued the respon· dents for ejectment and recovery of possession. The trial court decreed the suit and an appeal was taken to the High Court. While the appeal was pending the Bengal Land Revenue Sales (West Bengal Amendment) Act came into force on March 15, 1950. The High Court found that the respon• dents' property was a tenure in existence at the date of the issue of the notification of sale as mentioned iti cl. b (I) ofs. 37 of the Act as amended by s. 4 of the Amending Act and possession of the disputed property had been delivered to the appellant before commencement of the Amending Act but during the pendency of the appeal. It held that the land in dispute came within the protection of ss. 4 and 7 of the Amending Act, allowed the appeal and directed the trial court to record an order of abatement of the 1uit under s. f (2) thereof. ·It was contended by the appellant In this Court that after the delivery of possession no controversy remained in existence and that •· 4 of the Amending Act had ao retrospective operation. Held that although s. 4 of the Amending Act was pri'1111 faoie prospective, it was retrospective to the extent it was made so by s. 7 of the Amending Act and applied to pending litigation. It is well settled that an appeal is a continuation of the original suit and as the present suit was pending in appeal before the High Court and the decree had not become final before the commencement of the Amending Act, it must be held to have abated under s. 7 (1) (a), and not s. 7 (2) of the Amending Act as decided by the High Court, as soon as that Act came into force and it was not necessary to consider the effect of the delivery of possession during the pending of the appeal. The Amending Act of 1950 intended to grant relief to tenure holders if their tenures had not been wiped out by annulment under s. 37 of the old Act before the Amending Act came into force. Section 4 of the Amending Act read with s. 7 of the Act granted relief even in respect of revenue sales held before its commencement. Section 7 contemplated three kinds of cases, namely, (i) a pending auit or proceeding for cjectment; (2) pending 196! SdO<i.I Go(>al JJ111 v, Ajil .l"umar H•l"1 1961 S•bHh Gop.l Bos1 •• A.jit & runar Hald<r Sinho C. J. 592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1964) VOL. appeal or application for review or application for revision arising out of the first category made by an unsuccessful plaintiff, and (3) a final decree or order ·made for ejectment • A decree or order against which an ap!"'al had been filed and was pending on the date of the commencement of the Amendinc Act, if by the umuccessful plaintiff or applicant would be covered hy s. 7 (I) (b), whereas a decree or order for eject• ment which became final because . either no ap!"'al was preferred againat it, or if there had heen one, it was finally decided, would be within the purview of 1. 7 (2
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.