RADKAPADA JANA Vs. JNANENDRA NATH BOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from a judgment and decree passed by Shri K. K. Bose, Subordinate judge, Midnapore, dated 8. 7. 72 in title Appeal No. 314 of 1970 reversing those of dated 28th May, 1970 passed by shri S. D. Bhattacharya, Munsif, 3rd court, Tamluk in Title Suit No. 2 ( (9 of 1969. The defendant No. 1 is the appellant in this Court. The plaintiff brought a suit for declaration of his title and permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from interfering with his possession. The plaintiff's case may shortly be stated as follows :-

(2.) DEFENDANT No. 1 alleges that the plaintiff inducted him as bhagidar on 15th Baisakh, 1370 B. S. and that it was settled that the plaintiff would get half share of the crops and the defendant would remit the sale proceeds of plaintiff's share to the plaintiff at Calcutta. The defendant No. 1 reclaimed the suit land, made it arable and had teen cultivating the suit land as bargadar of the plaintiff since 1370 B. S. and delivered bhag crops to the plaintiff without any receipt. In the additional written statement the defendant stated that the plaintiff inducted him as bargadar on 15th Baisakh, 1370 B. S. on condition that the defendant would make the suit land fit for cultivation and for that he would not give anything to the plaintiff for first three years. Thereafter, the plaintiff would get half share of the paddy crops and 1/4th share of rabi crops or its sale proceeds. On 15th of Aswin, 1373 B. S. there was an agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 in pursuance whereof the defendant paid the plaintiff Rs. 100/- in Chaitra in each of the years 1373 and 1374 B. S. and rs. 150/- in Chaitra, 1375 B. S. being his share of the bhag produce. The defendant has been living on the suit land by erecting a chala thereon. The plaintiff wanted to sell the suit land and asked the defendant to vacate and as the defendant No. 1 refused to do so, the plaintiff has brought the suit under false allegations. The learned Munsif held that the defendant No. 1 was not a tadarakdar in respect of the suit land but a bargadar having been inducted by the plaintiff himself and accordingly he decreed the suit in part declaring the plaintiff's title to the suit land. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal to the District judge. The appeal was heard by the learned Subordinate Judge who reversed the findings of the learned Munsif and found that the defendant No. 1 is a tadarakdar under the plaintiff in respect of the suit land for the purpose of looking after the cultivation and not a bargadar as claimed by him. That being his finding, the learned subordinate Judge allowed the appeal and decreed the suit in full. The defendant No. 1 was permanently restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's possession in the suit land. Being aggrieved, the defendant No. 1 has come up to this Court.

(3.) MR. Narottam Chatterji, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, takes up two points. In the first place, it is contended that in view of the provisions of Section 21 (3) of the Land Reforms Act, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such a suit. The matter in dispute ought to have been decided by the competent authority mentioned in the Act and this court should set aside the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below and should refer the matter to the officer or authority mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section 18 for decision. In the second place, it is contended that the judgment of the court of appeal below is not a proper judgment of reversal as the court of appeal below did not properly consider the entire evidence on record and the conclusion arrived at by the court cannot be said to be just and proper.