KAMALA KANTA DHASHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises under these circumstances:

(2.) The Corporation of Calcutta which is the respondent in this appeal held certain brick-field lands at Kotrong in Hooghly. The Corporation on 1st Nov., 1926 granted a lease of the said lands in favour of one Kishori Mohan Banerjee for ten years. On the 2nd Nov., 1936, the Corporation on the expiry of the said lease granted another lease for a further period of ten years to the same party. Kishori Mohan Banerjee in his turn granted sub-leases to different parties. We are concerned with one of such sub-leases in this appeal. That sub-lease was given originally to Messrs. S.S. & Co. sometime in Nov., 1936. The subject matter of the said sub-lese was the land adjoining two kilns in the said Kotrong brick-field. The said Messrs. S.S. & Co. granted a sub-lease in favour of one Mr. G. Pal. ON 30th Oct. 1948 Mr. G. Pal transferred his interest in the said sub-lese in favour of the appellant company. IN 1947 the Corporation of Calcutta instituted a suit for ejectment against Kishori. In that suit originally the sub-tenants were not joined as parties. On 12th Dec., 1949, all the sub-tenants were made parties to the said suit except G. Pal and the appellant company and a decree was passed with consent of all the parties to the suit whereby the Corporation became entitled to get possession of the said lands. In respect of the kilns which were covered by the sub-leases to Messrs. S.S. & Co. it was provided in the said decree that the Corporation may get possession thereof by such means as they would be advised to take.

(3.) On 10th Oct., 1950, the Corporation applied for execution of the decree against the present appellant and prayed for possession in respect of the kilns covered by the said sub-lease. The execution proceedings were resisted by the present appellant. The trial Court held in favour of the present appellant and dismissed the said proceedings. Thereafter an appeal was taken to this Court by the Corporation. That appeal came to be heard by myself and Mallick, J. and on the 30th May, 1955, we held that the appellant company was bound by the decree passed against Kishori and we allowed the appeal and set aside the order raised by the Court below. Thereafter the matter was taken back to the lower Court and the execution proceedings were proceeded with. At that stage a fresh objection was raised by the appellant company. It contended that in view of the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act which had come into force on the 14th April, 1955, the Corporation was not entitled to obtain possession in execution of the said decree. The Court below did not accept that contention and dismissed the objection filed under Sec. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Against that decision the present appeal has been preferred.