SATIS CHANDRA BANDOPADHYA Vs. HASHEM ALI KAZI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Letters Patent appeal from a difference of opinion arising at the hearing of a Second Appeal before my learned brothers Mr. Justice Cuming and Mr. Justice Page.

(2.) I agree with the view of Mr. Justice Page that the plaintiffs suit must be dismissed on the ground that it is out of time by reason of Art. 3 of Schedule 3 to the Bengal Tenancy Act; and in this view the other considerations which might have arisen for our attention do not require to be argued at the bar.

(3.) The facts of the case are not in dispute between the trial Court and the District Court. The position shortly is that there was a rent suit against the plaintiffs and also Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 brought by Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on the 30 of May 1914. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were landlords of a holding of which the plaintiffs were co-sharer tenants. The rent suit was brought and was decreed on the 10 of November 1914 ex-parte. In that rent suit it appears that the Court without obtaining consent of the plaintiffs mother appointed her as guardian to the plaintiffs and it is to my mind clear that in the three Courts before which this case has come the fact that the mother did not consent to that appointment was treated as plain. I consider that it sufficiently appears from the judgment of the trial Court. In these circumstances the decree having been passed on the 10 of November 1914, on the 15 of December 1915 the plaintiffs in that suit - Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in the present suit - obtained symbolical possession of the land in question.