MANINDRA CHANDRA NANDI Vs. ANNODA MOHAN ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, Maharajah Manindra Chandra Nandi, is the proprietor of two estates bearing separate numbers (Nos. 136-1 and 137) on the revenue, roll of the Rajshahye District. The tenure to which the suit relates comprises these estates and was created in the year 1251 (1841) as a patni taluk, the rent reserved being Rs. 27,C01 per annum. The kabulyat, dated 26th Ashar 1251, executed by the original holder, is recited and its terms are embodied, in the kabulyat dated 16th Srabun 1279 (1872), executed in favour of the plaintiff s predecessor-in- interest by the father of defendants Nos. 1-3, Babu Mohini Mohan Roy, who had purchased the tenure in 1871. By these documents express power is given to the landlord in default of payment of any part of the rent due for any year to bring the tenure to sale under the provisions of Regulation VIII of 1819. It appears that the plaintiff made two applications to the Collector to sell the tenure under the Regulation, one in respect of the rent due for the year 1313 and the other in. respect of the rent due for the following year. Both applications were refused and on the second occasion, the matter having been brought before the Board of Revenue, the Collector s action was upheld by an order of the Board dated the 17th September 1908.

(2.) The plaintiff brought the present suit, firstly, to recover the rent and cesses due for the years 1313, 1314 and 1315 with interest, the claim being laid at Rs. 1,25,174 odd and a further claim being made for interest during the pendency of the suit and up to the date of payment, and, secondly, to obtain a declaration of his right to have the tenure sold under Regulation VIII of 1819. The defendants Nos 1-4 were impleaded as being the heirs of Babu Mohini Mohan Roy. It has been found, however, (hat on a partition of the property left by the latter, the tenure in question was attached to the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 5 is Receiver to the estate of that defendant.

(3.) In the lower Court, the plaintiff obtained a, decree against the defendant No. 1 for the sum claimed with interest after decree at the rate of six per centum per annum. Apparently, by inadvertence the learned Sub-Judge omitted to allow interest during suit. He also rejected the prayer for a declaration. This appeal preferred by the plaintiff is confined to these two matters. The defendants Nos. 1 and 5 were not represented before us and we have not had the advantage of hearing argument on their behalf.