PRIYANATH MITTER Vs. ANATH NATH DEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three points were argued in this appeal; first, that the case was governed by the Bengal Tenancy Act and, therefore, Priyanath had occupancy rights and the plaintiff cannot ignore him and ask for khas possession: secondly, that, on the findings, no abandonment is made out and that even if it can be said that there was an abandonment, the abandonment had been waived by the suit for rent brought by the plaintiff in 1908: and thirdly, that upon the findings, the suit for recovery of possession against Fani is barred by limitation.

(2.) The learned Judge has found that Priyanath abandoned the lands immediately after the lease, that is about 1885.

(3.) It is contended, first, that no abandonment under Section 87 of the Bengal Tenancy Act is made out; and, secondly, that if there was an abandonment, it had been waived.