- (1.) The plaintiff in this case, named Prabhuram Hazra, sues the first defendant Durgamani Debi, and the Bengal Coal Company, on the following allegations: He states that the first defendant granted him, on the 4th Aswin 1274, for a consideration of 99 rupees, a se-patni of her one-anna share in the talook consisting of five mauzas, and promised to effect registration of that se-patni patta within a reasonable time; but that afterwards, upon the evil counsels of the plaintiff's enemies, the Bengal Coal Company, and in league with one Kali Prasanna Misser, who is said to be a servant of the same Company, the defendant put off and finally refused to carry out the registration; and that afterwards the Bengal Coal Company well knowing that the plaintiff had obtained a previous se-patni from the first defendant, entered into a further contract of se-patni with her, whereby the plaintiff's rights were in various ways affected, and that plaintiff consequently sued for three things, namely : first, for the possession of the se-patni talook in question, which was valued at 93 rupees, and 5 annas, being twenty times the annual value of the proceeds of the talook, and 99 rupees, the selling price of the talook; secondly, for the damages caused by the refusal to register, which is stated at 3 rupees; and, thirdly, as I understand, to compel registration of the plaintiff's patta. The suit was dismissed by the Munsiff, and the order of dismissal was affirmed, on appeal, by the Subordinate Judge.
(2.) The plaintiff appeals specially, contending that the Courts below were wrong in holding this suit not to be maintainable. He contends this is so, because his allegation is that from the fraud of the Bengal Coal Company and his vendor, the registration of his kabala was not effected; and, secondly, because the plaintiff had been put into possession of the disputed talook, and then ousted through the fraud of his vendor and the managers of the Bengal Coal Company.
(3.) It seems to me quite clear that the plaintiff has improperly joined in his plaint three distinct causes of action in respect of which the first defendant and the Bengal Coal Company could not be jointly sued: also, that the first cause of action, namely, for the possession of this property, is one which could not be maintained in a Civil Court against either of the defendants, inasmuch as the plaintiff's title rested entirely upon an unregistered patta; and it has been expressly held in Sheikh Rahmatulla v. Sheikh Sariutulia Kagchi : 1 B.L.R. (F.B.) 58 that such a suit cannot be maintained. The third cause of action for the registration of the patta is one which, doubtless, would be maintainable against the party who was bound to register, namely against the first defendant, but would not be maintainable against both. There remains only the common cause of action, namely, that for damages, and that is one not cognizable in the Court of the Munsiff where the suit was brought, but in the Court of Small Causes. I am very far from agreeing in the reasons which I find in the judgment of the Subordinate Judge. He states, "the plaintiff alleges in his plaint that defendant No. 1 let out the disputed property to the plaintiff in se-patni, and having granted a patta delivered possession to him, and that it was also stipulated that he would wish the said patta to be registered in due time." I should have been at a loss to know where that allegation of the plaintiff had been found, if I did not find it repeated in the grounds of special appeal. It is quite clear, however, that the real ground on which the suit for possession was necessarily dismissed, is, that on the authority of the decision in Sheikh Rahmatulla v. Sheikh Sariutulla Kagchi : 1 B.L.R. (F.B.) 58 a suit based upon an unregistered title could not be maintained.;