KALU Vs. HAMIJUDDI HOWLADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2 claimed title to the disputed land under leases said to have been granted by the landlord. The defendants relied upon a lease executed in the year 1312, and the plaintiff relied upon another lease executed in 1319. The Court of first instance held that the lease in favour of the defendant was proved and that, therefore, the plaintiff could not succeed. On appeal that decree was set aside by the learned Subordinate Judge and the defendant No. 2 has appealed to this Court.

(2.) Two questions have been raised in this Court, the first is that the lease under which the plaintiffs claimed is void inasmuch as a fictitious entry of a plot of land was made in it in order to give jurisdiction to the Sub-Registrar of Jhalakati in whose Registration Office the document was registered, and reliance was placed on a recent decision in the case of Harendra Lal Roy Chowdhuri v. Srimati Hari Dasi Debi 23 Ind. Cas. 637; 18 C.W.N. 817 ; 27 M.L.J. 80 ; 41 C. 972 ; (1914) M.W.N. 462 ; 16 M.L.T. 6 ; 19 C.L.J. 484 ; 1 L.W. 1050 ; 16 Bom. L.R. 400 : 12 A.L.J. 774; 41 I.A. 110 (P.C.).

(3.) This question however, was not raised in either of the Courts below and the necessary facts have not been gone into by them.