Brahma Mayi Debi and Others vs Barkat Sirdar and Another

Sir Barnes Peacock Kt., C.J.—I think this is a very clear case. The applicants are persons other than the defendants. They have been dispossessed of land in execution of a decree, for I have no doubt that the order passed by the Court in a suit u/s 15, Act XIV of 1859, is a decree. The plaintiffs in the possessory suit are not injured. They are not worse off under a proceeding authorised by section 230, than they would be in a regular suit brought by the applicants against them to recover the land. The argument in respect of the stamp duty, that the applicants will be enabled to proceed without payment of stamp duty, is not one which affects the interests of the plaintiffs in the possessory suit; and it appears to me to be most reasonable that when a man is turned out of rightful possession under a decree of Court against another person, he should not have to pay stamp duty in order to get his land back again. The case must go back, with this opinion, to the Division Bench which referred it. The respondents will pay the costs incurred by this reference.