BENI MADHAB GHOSE Vs. ANILA BALA GHOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule was issued on the prayer of the Plaintiffs-Petitioners under the following circumstances:

(2.) Mr. Sinha, appearing on behalf of the Plaintiffs-Petitioners, contended that the provision of Section 46 of the Estates Acquisition Act had no application to the facts of the present case and the learned Munsif was wrong in refusing to entertain the suit and in thinking that the Civil Court had lost its jurisdiction temporarily. Mr. Sinha contended that Section 46 of the Estates Acquisition Act, which curbs the jurisdiction of the Civil Court at least temporarily applies only to cases where the determination of rent or determination of the status of any tenant or the incidents of any tenancy is in issue. Mr. Sinha admitted that where any of these questions have got to be determined, the Civil Court should wait till the preparation of the record-of-rights, and keep the suit stayed. It was the argument of Mr. Sinha that in this particular case the Plaintiffs-Petitioners were claiming a tenancy right in respect of a particular plot of land although for assertion of that right the tenancy had to be described as korfa tenancy. The real dispute in the submission of Mr. Sinha was a dispute about the right of the Plaintiffs-Petitioners to possess the disputed land, which the Defendant opposite party was attempting to take into her possession.

(3.) In support of the above contention Mr. Sinha cited a case Lola Gangaram v. Krishnagopal Jhunjhuwwalla and Ors.,1955 59 CalWN 1006. In that case it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that a suit in which the title of the party is to be determined, viz., whether he is or is not a tenant in respect of a particular land under another person does not come within the purview of Section 46 of the Estates Acquisition Act. This case has been followed by Baehawat J., sitting singly in a case (Sripati Charan Panja v. Narendra Nath Roy Choudhury and Ors.,1956 60 CalWN 1070.