S.R. Das Gupta, J. - (1.) This is an appeal against a decision of the District Judge of Nadia dated the 23rd May. 1950, confirming in part a decision of the Munsif, 1st Court, Krishna-gar dated the 22nd December, 1949. The defendant is the appellant before us. The suit out of which this appeal arises is a suit for realisation of rent at the rate of Rs. 195|11|3 for the period between 1350 to 1355 B.S. It is the admitted case of both parties that in any event the claim for the period between 1350 to 1351 B.S. is barred by the law of limitation. The defendant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. The matter arises in this way.
(2.) There were two temporarily settled estates being touzis nos. 2767 and 2768. The land covered by the two touzis was the same. The touzi No. 2767 represented only 10 annas interest and touzi No. 2768 represented 6 annas interest in the said land. One Kirti Chandra Mitra had the Maliki right in touzi No. 2768 to the extent of 2 annas 10 gds. The said Kirti Chandra had granted a lease in favour of the defendant on the 19th January 1914. Under the said lease the defendant became liable to pay a total rent of Rs. 619|11|3 per year out of which he was to pay Rs. 416/- to Government on account of revenue and Rs. 195|11|3 to Kriti Chandra, the lessor. The rent at the aforesaid rate was paid from 1914 to 31st March, 1939. On the 22nd March, 1934, the present plaintiffs had purchased Kirti's interest and since the said purchase they had been realising rent from the defendant. The touzis in question were temporarily settled estates. The said settlement was renewed from time to time. The period covered by the last of such renewals expired on the 31st March, 1939. Thereafter, on the 1st April, 1940, the Government took khas possession of the said touzi as the Maliks did not take any settlement from the Government. Such khas possession continued till the 31st March, 1945. Thereafter, the Government settled the touzis in question with the former Maliks. Such settlement was effected in the manner indicated in sub-clause 5 of clause 10 of Bengal Regulation VII of 1822. The said section provides that "if any person or persons when summoned refuse, neglect or omit to attend either in person or by representative, such person or persons shall be held to be bound by the decision of the majority of those who may attend, in agreeing or disagreeing to the jama, and his or their interests and estate shall, unless otherwise specially allowed, be held responsible for the Government revenue, and be liable to sale in the event of any arrear accruing on account of the settlement." Prior to such settlement notice under sub-section 4 of the said section had been issued to the former proprietors and as some of the proprietors when summoned did not attend, the settlement was effected in the manner indicated in sub-clause 5 of clause 10 of the said Regulation. It may be noted that the plaintiffs in the present suit were some of those proprietors who did not attend pursuant to the said notice. After the Government had resumed khas possession of the touzis in question it created a raiyati interest in respect of the entire 16 annas share in favour of the present defendant. In the settlement record which followed, the raiyati interest of the defendant was recorded in respect of the said entire 16 annas share, and the rent payable by the defendant was also recorded.
(3.) The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for recovery of the amount of rent payable under the lease dated the 19th January, 1914. The defence of the defendant in the suit is that as a result of what had happened there was no longer any relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendant under the said lease, and the only rent which is payable by the defendant to the plaintiffs is what is recorded in the Settlement records. The contention of the defendant was not accepted by the trial Court and the decision of the trial Court was upheld by the lower Appellate Court. The present appeal has been preferred to this Court against the said decision of the lower Appellate Court.;