TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1940 (8) TMI 34
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....if of Bahraich, dated 15th August 1936. The suit was brought by the appellants as thekadars of a bazar against the defendant who carries on grain dealing in that bazar. The plaintiffs' case was that they were thekadars on behalf of the Payagpur estate and as such entitled to recover bazar dues and haq zamindari from the grain dealers. The defendant Raghubar Dayal is now dead and his legal repr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sue, and the lower Appellate Court did not consider that it was necessary for the trial Court to decide any other issue. The learned Civil Judge observed that the mere fact that the defendant had on certain previous occasions paid something to the plaintiffs on account of bazar dues did not estop him from questioning their right to recover them from the defendant. Learned Counsel for the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ansferor and the transferee, and the benefit of Section 53-A can be enjoyed only by a defendant, as was held by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Probodh Kumar v. Dantmara Tea Co. Ltd ('40) 27 AIR 1940 PC 1. 3. Lastly it was argued that other issues should have been decided by the trial Court with special 'reference to the question of estoppel. We agree, however, with the lower Appe....