Srimutty Sibo Sundari Ghose vs Raj Mohun Guho (Manager on behalf of Girish Chunder Chukrabutty and others)

This is a suit brought on behalf of all the co-sharers in a certain property by the common manager who has been appointed under sec. 95 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, to recover possession of certain lands at one time in the possession of a tenant whose rights have been sold to third parties, the sales being invalid because they were not in accordance with the local custom with the consent of the landlord. The Plaintiffs have succeeded in the lower Appellate Court.

The appeals before us have been made by the purchasers from the tenant and the first objection taken is that the suits could not be brought by the common manager but that they must be brought by the co-sharers acting themselves or under authority specially conferred.

We are not prepared to limit the powers of a common manager, as set on in sec. 98(3) of the Bengal Tenancy Act in which he is declared to have the same powers as the co-owners jointly might but for his appointment have exercised. The sub-section further declares "and the co-owners shall not exercise any such power." The learned pleader for the Appellant does not contend that these suits should not have been instituted without the previous permission of the District Judge but he contends that the common manager not having the requisite powers by virtue of his office they should have been instituted by authority of the co-owners jointly. We are not prepared to contract the ordinary meaning of this section or to limit the powers of a common manager in the manner indicated. We, therefore, overrule this objection. The next objection taken is in regard to the custom for the transfer of rights of occupancy. The finding of the lower Appellate Court seems to us to be conclusive on this point and it amounts to this that transfer of such rights are not valid except on payment of the ordinary fees to the landlord. There is no objection taken that in this case there had been any such tender or payment of fees. The appeal is dismissed with costs. The judgment will apply to the other three appeals Nos. 454 to 456 of 1901.