BABURAM BAG Vs. MADHAB CHANDRA POLLAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Does not the principle of Walsh v. Lonsdale (1) (1882) 21Ch. D. 9. apply to the case?

(2.) That case is distinguishable. I rely on Manchester Brewery Co. v. Coombs (2) [1901] 2 Ch. 608, 617. and Section 27, Specific Relief Act.

(3.) There is no finding of knowledge of the plaintiff of the covenant in favour of the defendant. At the time of the lease with the plaintiff, possession of the defendant was under the old lease. Jenkins C.J. 1. Notice will be implied of all his rights. The plaintiff ought to have enquired of the man in possession. 2. Dr. Ghose. See Allen v. Anthony (1) (1816) 1 Mer. 282; 15 R. R. 113. and the observations of Jessel M.R. in Patman v. Harland (2) (1881) 17 Ch. D. 353. Section 27 of the Specific Relief Act throws the onus on you. 3. I want an opportunity to show that I had no knowledge. The plaintiff was taken by surprise.