GIRIBALA DASI Vs. KUDRUTULLA PARAMANICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, now appellant, brought the suit, from which this appeal arises, to eject the defendants from a holding on the ground that the holding is an occupancy raiyati, which cannot be transferred without the consent of the landlord, and that the defendants by their purchase from the landlord s registered Tenant had acquired no title.

(2.) The defendants replied that the holding was one at a fixed rate of rent and that they had with the consent of. the landlord s naib divided the holding into three equal parts, each of which bore a third of the former rent of the whole. They also asserted that the suit was brought by a dishonest naib and without the knowledge of the landlord.

(3.) The first Court found that the holding was an ordinary occupancy holding, that is, a holding which cannot be transferred without the consent of the landlord, and the defendants do not appear to have challenged this finding in the lower Appellate Court.