Authored By : Macpherson, T. Ameer Ali

Macpherson and T. Ameer Ali, JJ.

1. The appellant brought this suit, to eject the defendantas a trespasser. The defendant- contended that the plaintiff had no right tobring the suit, as he is a mere benamidar of Guru Churn Dutt, under whom andothers the defendant admits that he is a tenant. Both the Courts have found thatthe appellant is a mere benamidar of Guru Churn Dutt, and that he cannotmaintain the suit. This is quite in accordance with the decision of this Courtin Hari Gobindo Adhikari v. Akhoy Coomar Mozoomdar I.L.R (1889) 16 Cal. 364 inwhich it was held that a person who was a benamidar for one of the defendantscould not maintain a suit for a declaration of his right to, and for possessionof, Immovable property; such a person cannot, it seems to us, any the moremaintain a suit for ejectment. He has neither title nor possession. Ourattention has been called to a recent decision of the Allahabad High Court inthe case of Nand Kishore Lal v. Ahmad Ata I.L.R (1896) 18 All. 69. In that caseit was held, dissenting from the decision of this Court, that a benamidar canmaintain a suit of the kind mentioned. We cannot follow that decision as wethink the case in this Court referred to above was rightly decided, and is inaccordance with the previous decisions on the same point. The only contentionraised in this appeal is that the appellant, assuming him to be a benamidar forsome one else, can maintain the suit, and as that fails, the appeal must bedismissed with costs.

.

Issur Chandra Duttvs. Gopal Chandra Das (30.06.1897- CALHC)