AWADH BIHAR PRASAD Vs. RAMJI MAHTON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals by the pltfs. are under Clause 10, Letters Patent, from a decision of a Single Judge of this Ct. modifying a decision of the Subordinate Judge who upheld the findings of the trial Ct. & affirmed the decree made in favour of the pltfs.

(2.) The following pedigree shows that one Dodraj had two sons, Lekha alias Budhan, & Sobhan alias Biku; Lekha had four sons, Umrao, Saudagar, Dip Narain & Maulavi, & Biku had two sons, Shyam & Kailas: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_56_AIR(PAT)_1951Html1.htm</FRM> Pltfs. 1 to 3 are sons of Saudagar & Dip Narain & Maulavi are pltfs. 4 & 5 respectively. Other members of the family are pro forma defts. in these suits.

(3.) It appears from the record of rights that the land in respect of which these three suits have been instituted constituted eleven batai holdings of the tenants defts. under the pltfs. & the pro forma defts. In December 1922, an arrangement was come to between the landlords & the different tenants whereby the batai holdings were converted into naqdi holdings, & later on the three groups of defts. executed three kabuliats under which the eleven holdings were amalgamated into three new holdings for which they agreed to pay money rent. On the basis of these three kabuliats three rent suits were instituted against the three groups of tenants. In these suits the defts. plea was that the original--eleven holdings still existed & that there had been no amalgamation. The litigation came up to the H. C. in second appeals & a compromise was entered into under which, on the defts. making certain payments to the landlords by 29-9-1928, the landlords were in their turn to treat the original batai holdings which existed before December, 1922, as still existing. There is no evidence to show that any payment was made by the tenants under the terms of the compromise. In 1938, however, the defts. made eleven applns. under Section 112, Bihar Tenancy Act, for the reduction of their rents on the basis that there were eleven (& not three) naqdi holdings. In these applns. only Biku & Umrao were made parties & the pltfs. were not impleaded. A reduction of four annas in the rupee was allowed by the revenue officer. Subsequently, he revised his own order under Section 104E (2) and allowed a reduction of six annas in the rupee, that is, 37 1/2 per cent, reduction in the rents of all the holdings, without giving any notice to the pltfs.