- (1.) This appeal raises a pure question of law, namely, whether the holding of an under-raiyati in which he has a right of occupancy is transferable without the consent of his immediate landlord. The question has arisen in the following way: Deceased Adhar Chandra Sen, the predecessor-in-interest of substituted Appellant Durga Narayan Sen, instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for recovery of khas possession of two plots of land upon a declaration of his raiyati right thereto. The two plots have been recorded as bastu lands in khatians Nos. 273 and 512 of mouza Dubrajhat and one Nalinakshya Pal has been recorded as a korfa raiyat under Adhar Sen in respect of both the plots. The jama of one of the plots is Rupee 1 per year and of the other only 4 annas per year. The recording of these two korfa tenancies was challenged by the Plaintiff of the trial court as erroneous and he claimed khas possession of the lands against the two Defendants of the trial court alleging that the latter had not acquired any right to the disputed lands by their alleged purchase from the heirs of Nalinakshya.
(2.) The Defendants contended in the trial court that the entries in the c.s. records were correct and the Plaintiff was not entitled to khas possession of the disputed lands because Defendant No. 2 of the trial court who was wife of the other Defendant, had acquired a valid title to the lands by purchase from the heirs of Nalinakshya Pal. The trial court upheld this contention of the Defendants and decreed the suit in part declaring Plaintiff's raiyati right to the disputed lands, but dismissed his claim for khas possession on the finding that the entries in the c.s. record were correct.
(3.) This decree against which the Plaintiff preferred an appeal, was affirmed by the lower appellate court. So the Plaintiff has come to this Court in Second Appeal.;