RAJENDRA NARAIN SAHA Vs. SATISH CHANDRA PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in this second appeal is admittedly the sole proprietor of the land in suit. The respondent and his brother Abhoy jointly held the land under him as occupancy-ryots. Abhoy s half share was transferred to the appellant, who, according to the respondent, thereupon proceeded to interfere with the latter s peaceful enjoyment of the property. The respondent, therefore, brought this suit against his landlord for a partition of the occupancy- holding. Both the Courts below have concurred in decreeing the suit, and the landlord has presented this second appeal.

(2.) In support of the appeal, it has been contended, in the first place, that only permanent rights in property can be partitioned, and that, as an occupancy right is not a permanent right, there can be no suit for the partition of an occupancy-holding.

(3.) As regards this, we are unaware of any authority in support of the proposition. So far as we know, any property held for the time being jointly can be partitioned between joint holders. It seems quite clear, for instance, that one of two joint lessees under a lease for a term of years might sue for a partition of the lease-hold property during the continuance of the lease. If it were not so, the position might become, as seems to be the case here, absolutely intolerable. Before the transfer of half of the joint holding in suit, the respondent might certainly have sued his brother for a partition of the holding, and his right to obtain a partition now is distinctly saved by the provisions of Section 22 of the Bengal Tenancy Act of 1885. We are of opinion, therefore, that there is no bar whatever on this ground to the relief sought for by the respondent.