GOPAL CHANDRA DAS Vs. SATYA BHANU GHOSHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against a decree in ejectment. The appeal is valued at Rs. 28-1-0. This valuation is made under the statutory provisions of the Suits Valuation Act and the Court Fees Act and in no way represents the real value of the property. I am told if the defendants succeeded in establishing their claim to a permanent right to the land in suit the value of the property would be no less than Rs. 20,000.

(2.) The appellants before me are Defendants Nos. 7 and 8 in the suit. The defendant No. 7 through his benamidar and son Defendant No. 8, has purchased the tenancy interest of a holding which originally comprised two plots of land. One of these is about 14 cottahs in area situated on the east of Bridge Road Chetla and that is the plot which is the subject of the present suit. The other plot is to the west of the same road and is about one cottah in area. The plaintiff served notices to quit on Defendants Nos. 1 to 7 treating the tenancy as a tenancy-at-will.

(3.) The appellants-defendants contested the suit and before me the same contentions were urged as had been urged in the lower Courts. The following were the four points urged: firstly, that there had been no division of the original holding and that this suit being one for ejectment from a portion of the holding would not lie, secondly, that from the facts found by the lower appellate Court the legal inference should be drawn that the defendants had a permanent tenancy; thirdly, that the defendants and their predecessors had acquired a right of permanent tenancy by prescription; and lastly, that the notice to quit was bad because it related to portion of the holding and also because it had not been served on the Defendant No. 8.