BANDANA DUTTA Vs. MRITYUNJOY KUNDU AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is directed against judgment and decree both dated 10th April 2008, passed in Money Appeal No. 5 of 2006.

(2.) In view of the embargo created under Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the revisional application is maintainable against such judgment and decree.

(3.) The original plaintiff claimed for recovery of the arrear rent from the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners. Objection was taken that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner has acquired an undivided share in respect of the property and, thus, became the co-owner thereof. It is further contended that being the co-owner, the suit for recovery of rent by the other co-owner is not maintainable. It is further contended that the vendor of the original plaintiff was not his inducting landlord and he never paid any rent either to the vendors or to the original plaintiff as co-owner.