# BEJOY GOPAL MUKHERJI v. PRATUL CHANDRA GROSE

- **Citation:** [1953] 1 S.C.R. 930
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1950-01-20
- **Case number:** CIVIL APPELLATE JuRrnDICTION: Civil Appeal No. ri:~ of 1952
- **Bench:** Mehr Chand Maha.Jan, S. R. DAs, Bhagwa1'I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/bejoy-gopal-mukherji-v-pratul-chandra-grose-225
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Landlord and tenant-Permanent tenancy-Evidence-Inference froin po.<!session froni generation to generation, transfers, erection of structu,res and other ci1:cnmsttinces-J1Iere increase of rent,
effect of.
Permanency of tenure does not necessarily imply both fixity
of rent and fixity of occupation and the fact of enhancement of
rent Joes not necessarily n1ilitate n,gainst the tenancy being a permanent one.
When, therefore, in a previous suit the only <iuestion was whether the jama could be increasen and the jama was
increased :
Held, that this decision did not operate as res judicata on the
tJ.U8sLio11 of permanency of the tenure in a snbsoquent suit for
ejectment.
Shankar Rao v. Sambhu Wallad (1940) 45 C.W.N. 57; Jogen·
dra Krishna Banerji v. Szibashini Dassi (1940) 45 C.W.N. 590,
Probhas Chandra Mallick v. Debe-ndra Nath Das (1939) 43 C.W.N.
828, relied on.
'Thiere possession for generations at a uniforin rent, or construe·
tion of permanent structures hy itself may not be conclusive proof·
of a permanent right but the cumulative effect of such facto
coupled with other facts may lead to the inference of • permanent
I
I
I
•
I .
.. .
•
•
S.C.]{.
Sl1PRE.Y1E COURT REPORTS
931
1953
tenancy. Where \twas not known how the earliest known tenant
acquired the tenancy or \Yhat the nature of the tenancy was, the
tenancy had passed from one person to another by inheritance or
Bejoy Gopal
by will or by transfer inter vivas, in the deeds of transfer the
Mukherji
transferee was given the right to enjoy from generation to genera,~
v.
tion for ever, pucka structures and tanks had been constructed, P·ratul Chandra
Ghost.
and though there was an enhancement of rent in 1860, the rent
had not been increased since then :
Held, that all these circumstances put together irresistibli
led to the conclusion of a permanency of the tenure.
Probhas Chandra 1lfallik v. Debendra Nath Das (1939) 43
0. W .N. 828 referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JuRrnDICTION: Civil Appeal No. ri:~
of 1952.
Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated the
20th January, 1950, of the High Court of Judicature tit
Calcutta (Das and Gupta J,J.) in Appeal from Original
Decree No. 141 of 1940 arising out of ,Judgment and
Decree dated the 8th May, 1940, of the Court of the
Subordinate Judge, lst Court of Zillah Howrah in Title
Suit No. 38 of 1948.
N. 0. Chatterjee (A. N. Sinha., with him) for tlw
appellant.
Panchanan Ghose (Syama Chamn Mitter and A./{.
Dutt, with him) for the respondent.
1953. January 28. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
DAs J. - This is an appeal by the plaintiff in an
ejectment suit. His case was that defendant No. 1
Pratul Chandra Ghose was >1 Ticca tern111t of premises
Nos. 2 and 3, Watkin's Lane, Howrnh, comprising an
area of 1 Bigha 19 Cottahs of land 011 a rent of
Rs. 78 per annum under the landlords Kumar Sarat
Kumar Roy and Bibhuti Bhusan Cluitterjee, pro Jonna
defendants Nos. 2 and 3, that the plaintiff took a
l\Iourashi l\Iokarari len,sc from these landlords on the
23rd September, 19:37, and thereby hecame the immediate landlord of the said defendant and that the teuancy was determined by a notice to quit dated the
7th October, 1937. The trial Court, amongst other
•
932
SUPREME COUR'r REPORTS
[1953j
things, found as a fact that the tenancY. of the defendant Pratul Chandra Ghose was permanent, heritable
Bejoy Chandra and transferable and was not liable to be determined
Mukherji
v.
by notice. The plaintiff preferred an appeal to the
1953
Pratul Ohandm High Court but the High Court dismissed that appeal
Ghose.
holding, amongst other things, that the finding of the
DasJ.
trial Court as to the na\ure of the tenancy was correct.
The plaintiff has now come up on appeal before us
after getting a certificate from the High Court that it
is a fit case for appeal to this Court.
Helying on the decision of the Privy Council in
Dhanna 1vlal v. 1floti Sayar(') Shri N. C. Chatterjee
appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant contends
that the present appeal is not con

## Text

•
930
SCPREME COURT REPORTS
[1953]
19.13
Ganga Bux Singh on the death of th() latter and the
7'hakurain llaj defendants were therefore as the heirs and legal repreflani
sentatives of Ganga Bux Singh since deceased rightly
and Other.,
entitled to the same. As the bequest was not
v.
conditional and did not lapse there ~onld be no quesThakur Dwarka t'
f
lt'
t
t
f
'
t
· h
N h ,.. h
ion o any resu mg rus
or o any rntes acy wit
at
ui.11rf
•
•
and Others.
respect to the remamder.
The result therefore is that the appeal fails and must
Bhagwat-i J.
be dismissed \Vith costs.
1953
Ja;n, 28.
Appeal dismissed.
Agent for the appellants: R11;iinder Narain.
Agent for the respondents: 0. P. Lal.
BEJOY GOPAL MUKHERJI
v.
PRATUL CHANDRA GROSE.
[MEHR CHAND MAHA.JAN, S. R. DAs and
BHAGWA1'I JJ.]
Landlord and tenant-Permanent tenancy-Evidence-Inference froin po.<!session froni generation to generation, transfers, erection of structu,res and other ci1:cnmsttinces-J1Iere increase of rent,
effect of.
Permanency of tenure does not necessarily imply both fixity
of rent and fixity of occupation and the fact of enhancement of
rent Joes not necessarily n1ilitate n,gainst the tenancy being a permanent one.
When, therefore, in a previous suit the only <iuestion was whether the jama could be increasen and the jama was
increased :
Held, that this decision did not operate as res judicata on the
tJ.U8sLio11 of permanency of the tenure in a snbsoquent suit for
ejectment.
Shankar Rao v. Sambhu Wallad (1940) 45 C.W.N. 57; Jogen·
dra Krishna Banerji v. Szibashini Dassi (1940) 45 C.W.N. 590,
Probhas Chandra Mallick v. Debe-ndra Nath Das (1939) 43 C.W.N.
828, relied on.
'Thiere possession for generations at a uniforin rent, or construe·
tion of permanent structures hy itself may not be conclusive proof·
of a permanent right but the cumulative effect of such facto
coupled with other facts may lead to the inference of • permanent
I
I
I
•
I .
.. .
•
•
S.C.]{.
Sl1PRE.Y1E COURT REPORTS
931
1953
tenancy. Where \twas not known how the earliest known tenant
acquired the tenancy or \Yhat the nature of the tenancy was, the
tenancy had passed from one person to another by inheritance or
Bejoy Gopal
by will or by transfer inter vivas, in the deeds of transfer the
Mukherji
transferee was given the right to enjoy from generation to genera,~
v.
tion for ever, pucka structures and tanks had been constructed, P·ratul Chandra
Ghost.
and though there was an enhancement of rent in 1860, the rent
had not been increased since then :
Held, that all these circumstances put together irresistibli
led to the conclusion of a permanency of the tenure.
Probhas Chandra 1lfallik v. Debendra Nath Das (1939) 43
0. W .N. 828 referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JuRrnDICTION: Civil Appeal No. ri:~
of 1952.
Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated the
20th January, 1950, of the High Court of Judicature tit
Calcutta (Das and Gupta J,J.) in Appeal from Original
Decree No. 141 of 1940 arising out of ,Judgment and
Decree dated the 8th May, 1940, of the Court of the
Subordinate Judge, lst Court of Zillah Howrah in Title
Suit No. 38 of 1948.
N. 0. Chatterjee (A. N. Sinha., with him) for tlw
appellant.
Panchanan Ghose (Syama Chamn Mitter and A./{.
Dutt, with him) for the respondent.
1953. January 28. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
DAs J. - This is an appeal by the plaintiff in an
ejectment suit. His case was that defendant No. 1
Pratul Chandra Ghose was >1 Ticca tern111t of premises
Nos. 2 and 3, Watkin's Lane, Howrnh, comprising an
area of 1 Bigha 19 Cottahs of land 011 a rent of
Rs. 78 per annum under the landlords Kumar Sarat
Kumar Roy and Bibhuti Bhusan Cluitterjee, pro Jonna
defendants Nos. 2 and 3, that the plaintiff took a
l\Iourashi l\Iokarari len,sc from these landlords on the
23rd September, 19:37, and thereby hecame the immediate landlord of the said defendant and that the teuancy was determined by a notice to quit dated the
7th October, 1937. The trial Court, amongst other
•
932
SUPREME COUR'r REPORTS
[1953j
things, found as a fact that the tenancY. of the defendant Pratul Chandra Ghose was permanent, heritable
Bejoy Chandra and transferable and was not liable to be determined
Mukherji
v.
by notice. The plaintiff preferred an appeal to the
1953
Pratul Ohandm High Court but the High Court dismissed that appeal
Ghose.
holding, amongst other things, that the finding of the
DasJ.
trial Court as to the na\ure of the tenancy was correct.
The plaintiff has now come up on appeal before us
after getting a certificate from the High Court that it
is a fit case for appeal to this Court.
Helying on the decision of the Privy Council in
Dhanna 1vlal v. 1floti Sayar(') Shri N. C. Chatterjee
appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant contends
that the present appeal is not concluded by the concurrent findinμ of the Courts below that the tenancy
was permanent because that question was one of the
proper inference in law to be deduced from the facts
as found by the Court.s below.
The learned counsel
has, therefore, taken us through the evidence mostly
documentary, as to the nature of the tenancy. The
earliest document referred to is Exhibit P /ll, being
a conveyance executed in 1226 B. S.=1819-1820 by
Sheikh Manik and another in favour of Mrs. Cynthia
Mills Junior. How the vendors had acquired their
title is not known.
By that deed of sale the vendors, for a money consideration,
conveyed their
interest in the lands described as J amai lands to the
purchaser who, on payment of rent of Rs. 4-8-0 per
kist, was to "go on possessing and enjoying the same
with great felicity down to your sons and grandsons
etc., in succession by constncting houses and structures." Mrs. Cynthia Mills died some time before
October, 1855, and her son John Henry Mills who had
succeeded her sold the premises to one Mrs. Sabina
Love by a, conveyance Exhibit P/10 dated the 29th
October, 1855. It appears from that deed that by that
time a tank with masonry steps had been excavated
on the lands which were described as a plot of rentpaying garden land. The consideration for the sale
(I) (1927)L.R. 51I.\.178.
\
'
•
I '
S.C.R.
SCPREME COURT REPOH.TS
938
was Rs. 1,00.D.
The following provisions of the sale
I953
deed are of importance :-
Bej<>y Gopal
"From this date being entitled to make gift and
Mukherji
sale of the said property, you do bring into your own
v.
possession the said lands etc., and on paying a1mually Pmtut Chandra
to thP Maliks Zemindars Rs. 4-8-0 (Rupees four and
Glwse.
annas eight) in Sice<ts coins as rent and on getting
Das J.
your name mutated in place of mine and obtaining
Dakhilas in your own name, you do go on possessing
and enjoying the same with great felicity down to
your sons and grandsons etc., in succession."
By a conveyance Exhibit P i9, dated the 10th
October, 1856, Mrs. Sabina Love transferred the premises to one [<'rancis Horatio Dobsou.
The premises
were there described as
"garden land held under
Mourashi Patta" which Patta has since been held to
be a spnrious document in a subsequent litigation.
It appears from this document that Mrs. Cynthia Mills
had ex ca vtited a tank and eonstructed a pucca ghat ·
and laid out a garden and that on her death her son
and heir John Henry Mills came into possession of the
land and that he had sold the premises to }frs. Sabina
Love and that after her purchase Mrs. Sabina Love
had enclosed the said lands and had manufactured
bricks with the earth of the land she purchased. The
consideration for this conveyance was Rs. 1,200. It
provided as follows :--
" From to-day you become the ow1wr of the said
bnds with pmwrs of making gift and sale. On keeping
the said lands together with the tank with all interests
therein in your possession and under your control, and
on paying according to the previous Pat ta the )fokarari
<1nnual rent nf R.,. +-8-0 in Sicea coins into the Sherista
of the Zemindar and on having the previous name
•
struck off from the landlord's Sherista mid getting
your own name Tecorcled therein, you do go on enjoying and possessing the same with great felicity down
to your sons, gmndsons etc., in succession."
On 10th Jeshta 1260 B.b. corresponding to 23rd
}fay, 1859, a notice under sections 9 and 10 of Regulation V of 1812 was issued by the then Zemindars Rl}ni
•
1953
Be.joy Gopal
Mukherji
934
SUPREME COCRT REPORTS
[1953]
Lalanmoni and Raja Purna Chandra Roy. It was
addressed to "Mrs. Cynthia Mills Junior, Sarbarahkar
Mr. Dobson, of Salkhia." It ran as follows: -
v.
"This is to inform you that you are in possession of
Pratul Chandra l Bigha 19 Cottas oflands of different kinds as per the
Ghose.
b
d .
.
b 1
d d . th M l o·-·
_
oun aries given e ow as recor e m . e
a . epartDas J.
ment in the said village for which according to your
own statement you are paying a yearly rental of
Rs. 4-12-6. But you have taken no settlement in
respect thereof from our estate (sarkar). .Now on fixing the annual Jama of the said lands according to the
prevailing rate as per Jamabandi at Rs. 137-8-0 a year,
fifteen days' notice is given to you under the provisions
of sections !land 10 of Regulation V of 1812 and you are
hereby informed that within the said period you should
appear before our Zamindary G'utchery and accept a
Pottah after submitting a Kabuliyat according to the
practice in respect of the land and J arna.
In default,
nJter the expiry of the said period action will be taken
according to law, and thereafter no plea shall be entertained."
The requisition not having been complied with, tho
landlords evidently filed a suit being Suit .No. 590 of
1859.
The pleadings in this suit are not on the record.
On 21st September, 1860, the Principal Sudder Amin
delivered his judgment, Exhibit 24. It appears from
that judgment that the following two issues had been
framed:-
" 1. vVhether the plaintiffs have served notice on the
other party for assessment of J l1ma ?
2.
·whether a Jama can be assessed in respect of
the disputed lands; if so at what rate?"
The Principal Sudder Amin overruling the objection
of the defendants held that the landlords had full
power to assess the rent and accordingly he fixed the
rent at Rs. 2 per Cotta which worked out at Rs. 78 in
respect of the entire iand. There was an appeal from
that decision which, however, was dismissed bv the
judgment Exhibit Z (2) delivered on the 18th J\farch,
1862. The J\fournshi Patta relied upon was rejected as
l •
•
,
,
•
S.C.R
SCPREME COURT REPORTS
935
it was not registered and appoared, on examination, to
have been ne"'ly written and filed.
Thereafter the
landlord filed a suit for rent of the disputed lands
against Dobson and Exhibits Z and Z (1) are the certified copies of the judgment and order passed thereon.
On the 29th May, 1866, Dobson executed two mortgages (Exhibits P /6 and P 17) in favour of De Rozario
and John Dominic Freitas for Rs. 4,000 and Rs, 2,000
respectively.
Tho two re-conveyances dated 29th
February, 1874, and 12th March, 1874, are also on tho
record. On 6th March, 1874, Dobson sold the premisPs
to Henry Charles Mann by a deed which is Exhibit
P /5.
The consideration for the sale was Rs. 9,500.
It appears from this deed that by that time there
were two brick-built dwelling houses on the property
which came to be numbered as Nos. 2 and 3, Watkin's
Lane. On 11th September, 188:3, Henry Charles Mann
sold the premises to George .Jones for Rs. 10,000 : vi de
Exhibit P /4.
In both those sale deeds the transferee
is granted a heritable right for ever. In the assessment
books of the Howrah Municipality (Exhibits 22 series)
thR interest of George Jones is described as Mourashi.
In the landlord's Sherista the nature of the tenancy is
not stated and Dobson continues to be the recorded
tenant (Exhibit D series).
There was, however, no
eolumn in the rent receipts to indicate the status of
the tenant. It appearK that on the death of George
.Jones the estate came into the hands of the Administrator-General of Bengal representing the estate of
George .Jones.
In the rent receipts of Dighapatia
Raj the rent is said to he
"received
from
,Jones- -Administrator-General of Bengal." In May,
1931, the plaintiff and the Administrator-General of
Bcnga.l entered into an agreement for sale of premises
Xo. 2, vVatkin's Lane, being a portion of the premises
in question, fol' a sum of Rs. 10,001 and Rs. 1,001 was
paid by the plaintiff as and by way of earnest money.
The landlords having declined to subdivide the groupd
rent between the two portions of the premises, namely,
Xos. 2 and 3, vVatkin's Lane, and a portion of the
Premises No. 2, vVatkin's Lane, having fallen down the
•
1953
Bejoy Gopal
Mukherji
v.
Pratul Chandra
Ghose.
Das J.
036
S"GPREME COFRT Rl~PORTS
[1953]
1953
agreement for sale appears to have fallm} t.hrough. On
Be,ioy Gopal
the 4th ,June, 1932, the plaintiff suggested that a lease
Mukhe1ji
for 20 years should be gra.nted which was refused by
v.
the Administrator-General, Bengal. Then there was
Pratul Chandra some negotiation between the plaintiff and the
Ohos<.
Administrator-General of Bengal for the sale of both
DasJ.
the premises, Nos. 2 and 3, Watkin's Lane, to the
plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 12,500. The pla;ntiff on 9th
April, 1 !J33, sent a draft deed of sale (Exhibit 15) for the
approval of the Administrator-General of Bengal deseribing the premises as a Mokarari Mourashi homestead.
On 21st April, 1933, Dighapatia Raj Estate
wrote to the Administrator-General of Bengal saying
that the tenancy waft a Ticca one. On 6th June, 1933,
the Administrator-General of Bengal declined to
approve the draft as drawn. After some further proposal by the plaintiff for a long lease he declined to
purchase the property on the ground that the Administrator-General of Bengal had not a good marketable
title. Nothing having come out of the negotiations
between the plaintiff and the Administrator-General of
Bengal the latter in September, 1936, invited offers for
sale of the lands (Exhibit B). The defendant No. 1
made the highest offer of Rs. 12,251 and this was
accepted by the Administrator-General in preference to
the offer made by the plaintiff for Rs. 11,251. The
Administrator-General accordingly executed a conveyance in favour of the defendant Pratnl Chandra
Ghose (Exhibit P. X) who thereupon became the
tenant of the premises. Having failed to obtain title
to the premises from the Administrator-General of
Bengal the plaintiff approached the landlords a.nd on
22nd September, 1937, obtained a Mokarari Monrashi
Patta in respect of the disputed land on payment of a
Selami of Rs. 3,205 and at an annual rent of Rs. 78 only.
The defendant Pratul Chandra Ghose filed rent suits
against the plaintiff in respect of the nnderlea,se held
by.the latter under the Administmtor-General of Bengal
and obtained rent decrees. The plaintiff, however,
on the strength of hi5 new title deeived from the
superior landlords under the M:ourashi Patta served
'
•
,
,•
•
-
•
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
937
notice on the·defendant Pratul Chandra Ghose on the
l953
7th October, 1937, requiein0ct him to vacate the premises
BeJoy Gopal
on the last day of the month of Chaitra 1944 B. S.
Mukherji
The defendant Pratul Chandra Ghose, not having
v,
vacated the premises, the plaintiff filed the suit out of Pratul Chandra
which the present appeal has arisen.
Ghose.
Shri N. C. Chatterjee contends that in view of the
DasJ.
decision in the suit of 1859 it was not open to the
defendant Pratul Chandra Ghose to contend that his
tenancy was a heritable permanent tenancy. This
point was neither pleaded nor raised in the trial Court
but was put forward for the first time before the High
Court. The pleadings of the 1859 suit are not on the
record but the substance of the written statement
appears from the judgment Exhibit 24 passed in that
case. The issues framed in that case have already been
set out. There was no issue regarding the character of
tho tenancy, namely, whether it was permanent and heritable or otherwise.
The only question there was whether rent could be assPssed under the Regulation. There
is nothing in that Regulation suggesting that rent
could be assessed only if the tenancy was a ticca
tenancy or that rent could not be assessed if the
tenancy was a permanent one.
The question of permanency of the tenancy was not, therefore, directly or
substantially in issue.
\Ve find ourselves in agreement with the High Court that the permanency of
tenure does not necessarily imply both fixity of rent
and fixity of occupation. The fact of enhancement of
rent in 1859 may be a circumstance to be taken into
consideration hut it does not necessarily militate
against the tenancy being a permanent one, as held by
the Privy Council in the case of an i1gricultural tenancy
in Shankarrao v. Sambhu Wallad('),
The principle of
that decision was applied also to non-agricultural
tenancies in JogendraKrishnaBanerji v. Sm. Subashini
Dassi('). In Probhas Chandra 111allik v. Debendra Nath
Das(') also the same view was taken. We, therefore,
hold that the plea of res judicata cannot be sustained.
(r) (1940) 45 C.Vi/.N. 57·
(2) (1940) C.'\\'.\I". 590.
121
(3) (r939) 43 cwx: 828,
•
938
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1953]
Shri N. C. Chatterjee then contends, r,elying on the
decisions in Rasamoy Purkatt v. Srinath il1oyra (1),
Bejoy Gopnl
Mukherji
Digbijoy Roy v. Shaikh Aya Rahman ('), Satyendra
1953
v.
Nath v. Charu Sankar (3) and Kamal Kumar Datta
Pratul Chandra v. Nanda Lal Dule (') that the tenancy in this case
Gh0"·
cannot be regarded as a permanent one. The decisions
DaaJ.
in those cases have to be read in the light of the facts
of those particular cases. The mere fact of rent having
been received from a certain person may not, as held in
Rasamoy Purkatt v. Srinath.!Yloyra (supra) and Digb~joy
Roy v. Shaikh Aya Rahman (supra), amount. to a
recognition of that person as a tenant. Mere possession
for generations at a uniform rent or construction of
permanent structure by itself may not be conclusive
proof of a permanent right as held in Kamal Kumar
Dutt v. Nanda Lal Dule (supra) but the cumulative
effect of such fact coupled with several other facts may
lead to the inference of a permanent tenancy as
indicated even in the case of Satyendra Nath v. Charu
Sankar (supra) on which Shri N. C. Chatterjee relies.
What, then, are the salient facts before us ? It is not
known how the earliest known tenant Shaik Manik
acquired the tenancy or what the nature of that
tenancy was. The tenancy has passed from one person
to another by inheritance or by will or by transfers
inter vivas. In the deeds of transfer the transferee has
been given the right to enjoy the property from generation to generation for ever. A tank has been excavated and a pucca ghat built on the land. Bricks have
been manufactured with the earth taken from the land
and the premises have been enclosed within pucca
walls. Pucca buildings have been erected and mortgage~ have heen executed for substantial amounts.
Although there was an enhancement of rent in 1860
that rent has continued to he paid ever since then.
Portion of the premis~, namely, No. 2, Watkin'sLane,
has been used as a factory by the plaintiffs and on the
other portion, namely, No. 3, Watkin's Lane, residential buildings were erected which indicate that the
lease was for
residential purposes.
As already
(1) 7 C.W.N. 132
(2) 17 C.W.N. r56,
(3) 40 C.W.N. 854.
(4) (r929) l.L.R. 56 Cal. 738.
•
-
•
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
939
indicated thei;e have been many transfers and devolutions and the landlords have accepted rent from
the transferees or the successors.
The names of
:Nirs. Cynthia Mills and Dobson and Jones were mutated in the Zamindar's Sherista. Although in the rent
receipts Dobson continued to be shown as the recorded
tenant, eventually Jones's name appears on the rent
receipts as tenant. In spite of the increase in land
value and the letting value the landlords through whom
the plaintiff derives his title did not at any time make
any attempt to eject the tenant or to get any further
enhancement of rent since 1860. All these circumstances put together are explicable only on the hypothesis of permanency of the tenure and they irresistibly lead to the conclusion, as held by the lower
Courts, that the tenancy in question was heritable and
a permanent one.
The decision of Mukherjea, J., in
the case of Probhas Chandra JY!allick v. Debendra Nath
Das (supra) is definitely in point. In this Yiew of the
matter we hold that the Courts below were right in
dismissing the plaintiff'.s claim for ejectment.
In the result this appeal must fail and we dismiss it
with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
Agent for the appellant: P. K. Ghose.
Agent for the respondent : Sukiimar Ghose.
SARASW' ATHI AMMAL
v.
JAGADAMBAL AND ANOTHER.
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN and S. R. DAS JJ.]
Hind11 la•v-S11ccession-Dancing girls of Sonth IndiaWhether dasi dauqhter excludes niarried dau,ghters-Uu.ston1,-Na tu re
of evidence necessar·y to prove custo1n-- Hindu, law--Rulc preferring
1naidens
to
11ia1-ried
daughters, whether avplies
to JJrostitute
daughters.
The evidence on record did not establish the custom which
bad been pleaded, namely that among the community of. do.sis
•
1953
Bejoy Gopal
Mukherji
v.
Pratul Oha.ndrct
Ghose.
DasJ.
1953
Feb. 27.