BIBI QORAISHA Vs. BANDHU MAHTON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs-appellants filed Title Suit No. 93 of 1953 on the 18th August, 1953 which gives rise to Letters Patent No. 135 of 1959, for recovery of possession of the lands mentioned in the plaint together with mesne profits with effect from the date of the expiry of the term till the date of recovery of possession. They also filed Money Suit No. 177 of 1953, which gives rise to Letters Patent No. 134 of 1959 for recovery of rent from 1358 F.S. to 1360 F.S., at the annual rental of Rs. 450/- after making adjustment of Pesgi money of Rs. 450. The trial court decreed the two suits of the plaintiffs as prayed for, but granted a decree for interest at a lesser rate of six per cent per annum in the Money Suit. On appeal the lower appellate court affirmed the decrees of the trial court. The contesting defendants filed two Second Appeals in the High Court, namely, Second Appeal Nos, 367 and 368 of 1957 against the decisions of the court below passed in the two appeals affirming the decisions of the trial court. The learned single Judge who heard the appeals allowed Second Appeal No. 367 of 1957 and dismissed the plaintiffs suit for recovery of possession. So far as Second Appeal No. 368 of 1957 is concerned, the decree for arrears of rent was modified to this extent that the suit was decreed only at the rate of Rs. 150/- per annum instead of Rs. 450/-, as decreed by the courts below. The learned single Judge, however, granted leave to appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Hence, the plaintiffs have preferred the two Letters Patent Appeals.

(2.) The plaintiffs were 16 Annas Malik of Tauzi No. 16582 in Mauza Rampur Katahri in the district of Patna. They granted a lease of their entire interest in the Tauzi to one Lakshuman Nonia of village Ganichak from 1340 F. S. to 1350 F.S. at the annual rental of Rs. 120. On the termination of the aforesaid Thika the plaintiffs came in possession of the Thika property. Subsequently, the defendant took Thika settlement of, the aforesaid property on the 25th January, 1953 at an annual rental of Rs. 150/- per year for the period commencing from 1351,F.S. to 1356 F.S. After the expiry of. the Thika lease the defendants gave up possession of the lease-hold property, but defendant No. 1 again expressed his desire to take in Thika the same Tauzi and the plaintiffs agreed to it and in pursuance thereof they granted a Thika lease to the defendant, Bandhu Mahaton at an annual rental of Rs. 450/- for a period commencing from 1356 F.S. to 1360 F.S. The lease was executed and registered on the 29th June, 1948 and the defendant, Bandhu Mahaton also deposited Rs. 450/- as Zerpeshgi money. The defendant paid rent for 1356 F.S. and 1357 F.S. at; the rate of Rs. 450/-, but did not pay thereafter. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the Money Suit for recovery of arrears of rent on the expiry of the Thika. According to the case of the plaintiffs, they came in possession of the lease-hold property on the expiry of the period and cultivated a portion of the land, but the defendants began to interfere in their possession and ultimately a proceeding under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code was started between the parties, which was decided against the plaintiffs on the 10th August, 1953. Hence, they filed the two suits; one for recovery of arrears of rent.

(3.) The defendants resisted the suits of the plaintiffs on the grounds inter alia that they were cultivating the lands in question as adhiyadar from the year 1342 F.S. With effect from 1351 F.S., the plaintiffs commuted the adhi rent to a nagdi annual rental of Rs. 150/-. Patta and Kabuliat were executed, but the contents of the same were not read over to them. Subsequently the plaintiffs also got another lease executed at the rate of Rs. 450/-, and at that time also the contents of the documents were never intimated to them. The defendants acquired occupancy right in the land and as such they could not be ejected from the lands in question. In the Money Suit, the defendants put forward two pleas; firstly they pleaded that there was nothing due. In the alternative they pleaded that they being occupancy raiyats in respect of the suit land, the landlords had no right to enhance rent to Rs. 450/-, and at best they were entitled to rent at the rate of Rs. 150/-.