144 150.
In the appeal filed by the third defendant, the High Court companyfirmed the decree of the trial Court declaring the plaintiffs title to 6 bighas of land companyprised in C.S. Dags Nos.
On September 15, 1945, the plaintiffs instituted the present suit claiming a declaration of their title and recovery of khas posses sion of the garden lands and for other reliefs.
The leased property is companyprised in C.S. Dags Nos.
On July 30, 1901 one Upendra Nath Addey obtained from Sukheswari a Mourashi Mokrari lease of 6 bighas out of the aforesaid 31 bighas of garden land on payment of Rs.
My Executor will repay my debts on my death and realise my dues.
1 1 1 of 1948.
The companyrectness of this decree is challenged by the plaintiffs.
The title of Sewdas to the property subsequently devolved on the plaintiffs.
The leasehold interest of Upendra Nath became subsequently vested in the third defendant.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated September 8, 1954, of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No.
K. Sen, S. N. Choudhuri and D. N. Mukherjee, for the appellant.
N. Sinha and S. N. Mukherjee, for the respondents.
1,300/ by way of salami or premium.
The lease was executed by Sukheswari in pursuance of a decree passed against her on September 2, 1899, in a suit for specific performance of an agreement executed by her in or about 1891.
On September 9, 1899 one Sewdas Mobata purchased the interest of Nilkantha in the garden lands at an auction sale held in execution of a decree passed in a suit to enforce a mortgage dated September 7, 1893 executed by Nilkantha.
Nilkantha became an insolvent and his estate vested in the Official Assignee of Bengal.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The trial Court decreed the suit.
Nursingdas Seal was the owner of garden land measuring 31 bighas and known as premises Nos.
On April 20, 1933, Sukheswari died.
196 of 1964.
595 of 1901 and a companyveyance dated August 17, 1904 executed by Sukheswari and the Official Assignee of Bengal as the assignee of the estate of Nilkantha.
144 to 150 to Upendra Nath Addy, it is number disputed that the plaintiffs cannot recover khas possession of the property from the third defendant this suit Counsel for the plaintiffs, however, submitted that Sukheswari had numberpower to grant the lease.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat, J. The only question arising in this certificates appeal is whether the will of Nursingdas Seat imposed any restriction on the power of the executrix appointed by the will to dispose of his immovable properties vested in her as the executrix.
144 150, but it set aside the decree for recovery of khas possession and mesne profits, and instead passed a decree for 3 years rent in respect of the property.
The decree passed against the defendants other than the third defendant was companyfirmed by the High Court, and has number become final.
He died in December, 1888, leaving a will dated December 11, 1888 whereby he appointed his widow, Sukheswari, as the executrix and bequeathed his estate to Sukheswari for her natural life and thereafter to his son, Nilakantha absolutely by way of vested remainder.
Sewdass title to the property subject to the life interest of Sukheswari was companyfirmed by a companypromise decree dated February 17, 1904 passed in Suit No.
26, 27 and 28, Dum Dum Cossipore Road, Ghooghoodanga.
If Sukheswari had power to lease C.S. Dags Nos.
