JATINDRA KUMAR CHAKRAVARTY Vs. CHANDRA KUMAR ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three Rules are directed against three orders made by the Munsif of Nabinagar in the District of Tippera by which three applications made on behalf of the landlords for the exercise of their right of pre-emption; Under Section 26-F, Ben. Ten. Act, were granted. The three holdings in connection with which the applications were made were all within the Nabinagar Munsifi. The holdings however had been sold by the Munsif, first Court, Brahmanberia, in execution of a decree for money exceeding Rs. 1,000. When the applications Under Section 26-F were filed before the Munsif of Nabinagar the landlords were ready with the money that was required by law to be deposited along with challans in triplicate. For some reason or other the challans could not be passed on that date but were passed on the next working day. When the applications were considered there was opposition coming from the side of the auction-purchasers and the applications were resisted on two grounds. The two grounds were (1) that the Nabinagar Munsif had no jurisdiction to entertain the applications and (2) that in view of the provisions of Section 26-F, Sub-section 2, the learned Munsif ought to have dismissed the applications then and there in view of the fact that no deposit had at that time been actually made. Both these points were negatived by the Munsif and the learned Munsif as I have observed at the out-set granted all the three applications of the landlords. It is against these orders granting the applications that the present Rules are directed.

(2.) The two points which were taken in the Court below were also taken before me. I am clearly of opinion that there is not much substance in either of them. On behalf of the petitioner it was contended that the word " Court " mentioned in Section 26-F is the Court referred to in Section 26-F, Ben. Ten. Act. There is, however, no authority for this view of the matter. On the other hand, the provisions of Section 144, Sub-section 3, Ben. Ten. Act, seems to me to be clear on the point. Under that section applications like those in the present case have to be made to the Court which would have jurisdiction to entertain suits for possession of the tenure or holding in connection with which the applications are made; that is to say, to the Court to which a suit for the possession of the tenure or holding in question would lie. As stated before all the three holdings were with-in the jurisdiction of the Nabinagar Munsifi and none of them was of a value exceeding Rs. 1,000. That being so, and remembering the provisions of Section 15, Civil P.C., the Court of the Nabinagar Munsif was, in my opinion, the proper Court to entertain the applications in the present case. If the sales had been held by the Munsif, first Court, Brahmanberia, it was apparently because the Munsif, First Court, Brahmnaberia, was an officer having special powers to try suits up to the limit of Rs. 2,000 and the decree in execution of which the sales have taken place was for an amount of money exceeding Rs. 1,000.

(3.) The second point was, as I have said before, that the learned Munsif in view of the provisions of Section 26-F, Sub-section 2, Ben. Ten. Act, ought to have dismissed all the three applications when the money that was required to be deposited had not been actually deposited. It appears, however, that along with their applications the landlords produced challans in triplicate and were ready with the money that was required under the provisions of this Act. The landlords in the circumstances did all that they had under the law to do and if they did all that they had to do towards making a deposit what they actually did on the date when the applications were filed was in my judgment a deposit that was contemplated by the law to have been made by the applicants. It is to be remembered in this connection that these applications were made long before the last date for making them. It is to be remembered also that the learned Munsif after registering the applications permitted the money to be deposited which was nothing more than an office procedure for passing the challans. As I have observed at the outset there is no real substance in either of the two points which were urged before me on behalf of the petitioners. I would therefore discharge all the three Rules with costs, the hearing fee being assessed at one gold mohur in Rule No. 1184 and one gold mohur for the other two Rules.