DHANANJOY PAL Vs. MAHADEB CHANDRA SADHUKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the Plaintiff whose suit for a declaration that Ram Chandra Sadhukhan, a non-agricultural tenant, has no right to erect pucca structures on the land demised, as also for injunction, permanent and mandatory, fails in the Court of first instance. An appeal taken against that comes to little. Hence this second appeal.

(2.) The origin of a non-agricultural tenancy as this lies in a bemeadi kabuliyat dated Magh 8, 1311 B.S., corresponding to January 23, 1905, Ex. 1, in favour of one Nani Lai Chunari, the predecessor-in-interest of Sadhukhan.

(3.) It is hardly necessary to notice the vicissitudes through which this litigation launched 20 years back in May 1948 has passed. Suffice it to say that the disputes between the parties have once been carried to this Court leading to a leading case on the true construction of Section 88 and Section 6 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, XX of 1949: Mritunjoy Pal v. Ram Chandra Sadhukhan,1959 59 CalWN 1039. More, by this decision a Division of this Court overruled an earlier decision of a single Judge on what the construction of Section 88 should be like: Sarat Chandra Mondal v. Satish Chandra Baidya,1954 59 CalWN 434.