AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.—We answer the question referred in the negative. Symbolical possession is not real possession nor is it equivalent to real possession under the CPC except where the Code expressly or by implication provides that it shall have that effect.
Sections 264 and 319 of the Code of 1882 prescribed and impliedly gave effect to symbolical possession under certain specified conditions but symbolical possession was neither prescribed nor recognised by Sections 265 or 318 of that Code or by the corresponding sections of the earlier Codes nor in our opinion do the Bengal Full Bench decisions, Jitggobundhu v. Ram Chunder By sack ILR (1880) Cal. 584 and Joggobundhu v. Purnanund ILR (1889) Cal. 530 suggest the contrary.
Under the new Code of 1908, Rule 35 (2) of Order XXI provides one additional case in which symbolical possession may be resorted to.
We overrule Gopal v. Krishnarao ILR (1900) 25 Bom. 275 and Mahadeo v. Parashram ILR (1900) 25 Bom. 358 which, we think, were wrongly decided.