High CourtsDivision Bench(1930) 03 CAL CK 0025

Mir Belayet Ali vs Radhikalal Das

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 6 March 1930 · Citation: AIR 1930 Cal 547a

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rankin, C.J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

1 paragraphs · 128 words

Rankin, C.J.—In my opinion this Rule must be discharged. In appears that the transferee paid money into Court on the footing that he had taken transfer of an occupancy holding. In these circumstances, it appears to me that the landlords'' right arose under the new clause in the Bengal Tenancy Act and that, if the transferee has gone to expense in putting masonry buildings in the meantime upon the property he has done that at his own risk. This case cannot be treated as a case of encumbrance nor is it possible for the Court to go outside the language of Section 25(f)(2). Ben. Ten. Act, and to order compensation which is not authorised thereby. The Rule must, therefore, be discharged with costs. Hearing fee one gold mohur.