High CourtsDivision Bench

Durga Prosad Bundopadhya and Others vs Brindabun Roy and Others

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 28 March 1892 · Citation: (1892) ILR (Cal) 504

HON’BLE JUDGES
Prinsep, J · Hill, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885 — Section 15, 16
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

1 paragraphs · 136 words

Prinsep and Hill, JJ.—We have the satisfaction of feeling that the arguments of the learned pleaders on both sides have placed before us everything that could be said in this matter, which is of some importance. We agree with the District Judge in the opinion he has expressed regarding the application of Sections 15 and 16 of the Bengal Tenancy Act to putni tenures with due regard to Section 195 (e). In our opinion these provisions apply to putni tenures. It seems to us that the object of Section 195 (e) is that nothing in the Bengal Tenancy Act should interfere with the putni law in respect of putni tenures, but that in other respects the Bengal Tenancy Act should be held to apply as supplementing the putni law. The appeals are therefore dismissed with costs.