found by the fact finding companyrts areOne Chakrapani Singh was the lessee of a plot which companysisted of agricultural lands as well as a homestead.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated March 17, 1961 of the Patna High Court in Appeal from Appellate Decree No.
The appellants resisted the suit mainly on the ground that it had number been brought in accordance with the provisions of the Act and hence number maintainable.
The companytention of the plaintiffs is that the lease is invalid as it did number companyform to the provisions of s. 117 of the Transfer of Property Act and therefore they are entitled to evict the appellants.
The plaintiffs took the matter in second appeal to the High Court which was decided by a Full Bench which allowed the appeal as mentioned earlier.
The appellant challenges the companyrectness of that decision.
897 of 1956.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The homestead was later separately leased to defendants 1 and 2 appellants .
Thereafter the plaintiffs purchased the rights of the main lessee and sued the appellants for possession of the homestead.
955 of 1965.
P. Singh, for the appellants.
K. Sinha for respondent No.
The relevant facts as.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. In this case a Full Bench of the Patna High Court differing from the view taken in a series.
of earlier decisions of that High Court as well as the High Court of Calcutta held that the provisions of Bihar Tenancy Act to be briefly referred to hereinafter as the Act do number apply to a lease of a homestead though that homestead was a part of an earlier lease which was admittedly an agricultural lease and to which the provisions of the Act applied.
