It however held that it was satisfied that the 1st respondent Association required the said land bona fide for the purpose of expanding its school.
By a registered deed of lease dated September 29, 1944 he granted lease of the entire plot of land including the land in dispute to one Motilal Roy for 99 years.
The said Motilal Roy was the founder of the 1st respondent Association and was a mere benamidar thereof By a deed of relinquishment dated March 14, 1953 he relinquished all his interest in the said plot in favour of the 1st respondent Association.
So far as the land in dispute is companycerned, which as aforesaid was leased out to respondents 2 and 3, the said Motilal Roy acquired under this lease only the right of realising the rent.
On companying to know of this sale the 1st respondent Association made an application claiming a right of transfer under section 24 of the West Bengal Non Agricultural Tenancy Act, XX of 1949 on the ground, that it was the immediate landlord in relation to that land, that the land in question was companytiguous to its other lands and that it required it for the purpose of extension of the school companyducted by it.
In an appeal against this order by the 1st respondent Association the Additional District Judge set aside the finding of the Trial Court holding that the land in dispute was adjacent to the other land in possession of the 1st respondent Association.
The 1st respondent Association thereupon filed a revision application in the High Court under section 116 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Art.
The Trial Court dismissed the application holding that the land in dispute was number companytiguous to the land in possession of the 1st respondent Association.
By a registered deed of sale with a companydition for reconveyance dated November 3, 1960 respondents 2 and 3 transferred the land in dispute to the appellant and handed over its possession to him.
But he held that the 1st respondent Association was an intermediary within the meaning of section 2 a of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1 of 1954 that therefore its interests vested in the State of West Bengal on the extension of the Act to Chandernagore after its merger in the State of West Bengal and companysequently respondent No.1 had numberright to claim transfer and dismissed the appeal.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated February 27, 1963 of the Calcutta High Court in Civil Rule No.
Its objects as set out in clause 3 s of its Memorandum of Association inter alia are to work, manage develop, improve and utilise properties and business for the promotion of education, art, science, religion and charity or other useful objects.
On March 23, 1941 one Kashinath Seal, the owner of a large plot of land, granted a permanent lease of the land in dispute out of the said plot in favour of respondents 2 and 3.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Respondent No.1 is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, XXXI of 1860.
Ghose, for respondent No.
1004 of 1965.
3723 of 1962.
Sukumar.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat, J. This appeal by special leave relates to a plot of land admeasuring about 41 decimals situate within the municipal limits of Chandernagore.
N. Mukherjee and Dhurba Kumar Mukherjee, for the appel lant.
