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
4 paragraphs · 219 wordsPrinsep and Trevelyan, JJ.—This is a suit originally brought by five persons claiming as proprietors of the land held by the defendants, to eject them on service of notice.
In the course of the proceedings in the first Court, one of the defendants, [plaintiff''s?] Saroda Sundari Gupta, obtained leave to withdraw from the appeal, [suit?] and was accordingly made a defendant by the other plaintiffs.
The Subordinate Judge in appeal has found that, although notice was served by all the landlords, still, inasmuch as one of them was not a plaintiff in the present suit, it must fail. The authorities cited to us--Radha Proshad Wasti v. Esuf ILR Cal. 414 and Reasut Hossein v. Chorwar Sing ILR Cal. 470 do not support this view of the law. It seems rather that the plaintiffs now on the record are entitled to ask for a decree to get possession as against the defendants of their share of the estate provided that they succeed in other respects. As has been pointed out already by this Court, if such a suit were not possible, it would be in the power of the proprietor of a very small portion of a property to prevent the other proprietors from ever asking for their rights.
We think, therefore, that the suit should proceed.