SHYAMA CHURN GHOSH Vs. MAHOMED ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in this case sued for recovery of certain land under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act from which the defendants had, as he said, dispossessed him. The Munsif found that most of the land was in the possession of his tenants and that, therefore, he was not entitled to sue under Section 9. Accordingly he dismissed the suit for that land following Sonaton Shome V/s. Sheikh Helim 6 C.W.N. 616. The plaintiff then obtained a Rule from this Court to show cause why the dismissal of the claim for the lands in possession of the tenants should not beset aside.

(2.) The petitioner relies on Bindhubashini V/s. Jahnavi 1 Ind. Cas. 150 : 13 C.W.N. 303. It seems to us that that case is in direct conflict with Sonaton Shome V/s. Shiekh Helim 6 C.W.N. 616. An attempt has been made to distinguish the cases, but, in our opinion, the propositions they lay down are not reconcilable.

(3.) If we were constrained to choose between them, we should certainly prefer to follow Bindhubashini V/s. Jahnavi 1 Ind. Cas. 150 : 13 C.W.N. 303. Even if the plaintiff in this case is not in possession of the land he is in possession of the benefits to arise out of the land and we do not see why, if he has been deprived of the possession of these benefits, he should not be entitled to obtain recovery.