High CourtsDivision Bench

Sree Lal Jha and Others vs Forbes

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 7 February 1882 · Citation: (1882) ILR (Cal) 365

HON’BLE JUDGES
Tottenham, J · Cunningham, J
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 · 166 words

Cunningham, J.—As to the point of limitation, we are not prepared to hold that the lower Courts were wrong in deciding the point in favour of the plaintiffs. Looking to the course of decisions of this Court we think it is clear, that Section 27 of Beng. Act VIII of 1869 applies only to such suits for possession as the Court is asked to decide irrespectively of any title, but simply on the ground that the plaintiffs have been ousted otherwise than by legal means. In the present suit, the plaintiffs allege a particular right, say that the defendant brought his ejectment suits without the knowledge of most of them, and pray for an adjudication of their right and for possession. We are of opinion that, under the rulings of this Court, we are bound to hold that this suit does not come within the rule of limitation contained in Section 27. [The rest of the judgment is not material for the purposes of this report.]