SUBODH GOPAL BASU Vs. ROYAL CALCUTTA TURF CLUB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is preferred by the plaintiff-appellant against an appellate judgment and decree reversing the decision of the trial Court briefly in the following circumstances : a suit was instituted by the present appellant against the defendant inter alia, for damages for being in wrongful use and occupation of certain land belonging to him. The appellant's case briefly was that after purchase of certain share of Touzi No. 6 under the 24-Parganas collectorate he annulled the interest of all persons in possession of the suit lands and thereafter obtained a decree for khas possession against the present respondent and others. This suit was decreed on contest in his favour and affirmed on appeal by the respondent. Thereafter, though he took delivery of possession through Court he could not get actual possession and the respondent continued to possess the disputed lands as a trespasser.

(2.) THE suit was contested by the respondent and apart from the general denial of material allegations the specific case of the respondent was that in view of the Land Revenue-Sales Ordinance of 1949 and the subsequent Amendment act VII of 1950 amending the Bengal revenue Sales Act, 1889, no such suit was maintainable and the decree for khas possession obtained by the appellant in the earlier suit became wholly ineffective and invalid.

(3.) THE learned trial Court decreed the suit substantially on the view that since the possession, though symbolical, was already delivered the decree passed in favour of the appellant remained unaffected under the proviso to subsection (2) of Section 7 of the above amendment Act with the result that the appellant as rightful owner of the land could maintain a suit for damages against the respondent for its wrongful use and occupation. On appeal, the appellate court took a contrary view and dismissed the suit of the appellant. That is! how in short the appellant felt aggrieved and preferred the present appeal.