Kuldip Singh vs Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co.

Hill and Rampini, JJ.—In this suit the plaintiff alleges that he has purchased 6 1/4 bighas of an occupancy jote of 8 bighas belonging to Nanku Rai and others. He further pleads that he has been dispossessed by the defendants who are the landlords of the occupancy jote of 1 bigha 15 cottahs, and he sues them for possession.

The Lower Appellate Court has dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff, as the transferee of a portion of an occupancy holding, has no title as against the defendants. The plaintiff now appeals, and on his behalf it has been contended that the plaintiff does not seek to be recognized as a tenant by the landlords, but merely prays to be restored to possession of the disputed land from which he has been wrongfully ejected.

We think, however, that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover possession on proof of mere wrongful dispossession. This is not a possessory suit u/s 9 of the Specific Relief Act. That being so, he must show some title to the land as against the defendants. We agree with the Subordinate Judge in thinking that he has proved none. He no doubt shows that he has purchased 6 14 bighas of the jote from the occupancy raiyat, but this transfer is not binding against the landlords, the present defendants, who are in no way bound to recognize it. As against the landlords, the plaintiff shows no title under which he can demand to be restored to possession of a portion of the holding.

The learned pleader for the appellant urges that there is no law which prohibits the transfer of portion of an occupancy holding. But there is no law under which any such contention as set up by the plaintiff in this case can be supported, and it would seem to us that to admit it to have any force would be contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of Section 88 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.

The learned pleader prays that the case may be remanded for a finding whether the occupancy holding, from a portion of which the plaintiff alleges himself to have been dispossessed, is or is not transferable by custom. We think it unnecessary to do so, for in either case in our opinion the plaintiff would have no right as against the defendant to recover possession of a portion of the holding.

We therefore dismiss the appeal without costs, the respondent not appearing.