JNANENDRA NATH MOOKERJEE Vs. BRAHMAPADA PRAMANICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this appeal turns upon the construction o? a decree obtained by the appellant against the respondent in a suit for recovery of possession.

(2.) It appears that the suit was for ejectment of the defendant from certain land on which there were some huts. The huts are found by both the Courts below to belong to the plaintiff. There was no reference to the huts in the plaint in that suit but the decree in that suit was as follows: The suit being decreed with costs and interest, plaintiff will get khas possession of the disputed land on ejecting the defendant there from, as prayed. The defendant himself must remove all his personal properties from the disputed land within one month. In default the plaintiff will have to remove the same with the help of the Court and he will get khas possession of the said land.

(3.) In execution of the decree, the plaintiff obtained khas possession of the land by turning out the defendant. The defendant thereupon applied to the Court below for restoration to possession of the huts and an order has been made in his favour by the Courts below on the ground that there was no reference to the huts in the decree for ejectment.