AHMED HUSSAIN Vs. MAYA-JAN NESSA CHOUDHURY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree passed by Subordinate Judge No. 1. Silchar, in Title Suit No. 25 of 1963. The plaintiff Ahmed Hussain is the Receiver appointed by the Calcutta High Court in respect of the Estate of Khan Bahadur Hafiz Md. Hussain in a suit before that Court by an order dated September 9, 1960.

(2.) THE present suit is for declaration of lease -hold right of the Estate of Khan Bahadur Hafiz Md. Hussain, aforesaid, over the lands described in the first schedule and full title over the houses described in Schedule 2 and also for delivery of khas possession of the land and houses in Schedules No. 1 and 2, to the plaint, after eviction of the principal defendants on removal of their unauthorised structures on the suit land. The plaintiff has also claimed Rs. 300/ - as the value of the property described in Schedule 3 to the plaint and also Rs. 7,200/ - as mesne profit for wrongful possession of the land in suit.

(3.) ONLY defendant No. 1 has filed a written statement and contested the suit. He admits that the property in suit belongs to defendant No. 15 and that Hafiz Mahammad had a lease -hold right in respect of the suit land under defendant No. 15, He avers that Hafiz Mahammad constructed 2 godowns, one guddighar, one kitchen, one latrine etc. on the suit land and possessed the same through tenants. After his death litigations started in the High Court of Calcutta which appointed Receivers to look after and manage properties left by Hafiz Mahammad. Accordingly, it is further alleged "the Receiver settled the aforesaid houses in the vacant suit land with Abdul Waheb Bepari as Bharatia in respect of the houses as tenant (Dar -Jotedar) in respect of the vacant land on an annual consolidated rent of Rs. 220/ -. The said Abdul Waheb Bepari taking settlement of the houses as Bharatia and vacant land as tenant (Dar -Jotedar) at an annual consolidated rent, entered into possession. This consolidated rent of Rs. 220/ - was subsequently raised to Rupees 325".