Source: https://www.legalindia.com/judgments/huri-mohan-shaha-vs-baburali-on-16-march-1897
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 10:31:08+00:00

Document:
Posted On March 16, 1897 by &filed under Calcutta High Court, High Court.
1. I think the Subordinate Judge in this ease is in error. He decided the case upon the authority of the case of Krishna Lall Dutt v. Radha Krishna Surkhel I.L.R. 10 Cal. 402 but that case has been reversed by the decision in the case of Joggobundhu Mitter v. Purnanund Gossami I.L.R. 16 Cal. 530 and the latter case is certainly consistent with the principle of the cases of Joggobundhu Mukerjee v. Ram Chunder Bysack I.L.R. 5 Cal. 584 Lokessur Koer v. Purgun Roy I.L.R. 7 Cal. 418 Seen v. Muttusami I.L.R. 10 Mad. 53 and Shama Charan Chatterji v. Madhab Chandra Mookerji I.L.R. 11 Cal. 93.
2. It is urged by the respondent’s Vakil that this ease is distinguishable from those to which I have referred by reason of the fact that in some of those cases the tenants were in possession, in which case Section 319 of the Code of Civil Procedure was the proper one under which to take or to give symbolical possession. He says that those cases are distinguishable from the present by reason of the fact that in this case the judgment-debtor was in possession, and therefore actual possession ought to have been given under Section 318 of the Code, and not symbolical possession under Section 319. But be that as it may, we have the fact which cannot be got over, that possession, call it symbolical possession if you will, was given by a Civil Court in this case (sic)the plaintiff, and in the ease of Lokessur Koer v. Purgun Roy I.L.R. Cal. 418 it was laid down that the formal possession given by a Civil Court under an execution operates in point of law and of fact, as between the parties, as a complete transfer of possession from one party to the other. In this case, it seems clear that symbolical possession which in law is possession, was given on the 8th November 1881. It may be that it was wrongly given by reason of the fact that actual possession ought to have been given under Section 318 of the Code, but still possession was given to the plaintiff by a Civil Court; and, under the circumstances, it seems to me that the period of limitation must begin to run from the. date of that possession being given, which was the 8th November 1881, in which ease the plaintiff is within time. I think the appeal must be allowed, and the ease remanded to be tried on its (sic)nerits. The costs will abide the result.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.