LAWS(PVC)-1903-2-1

NIKUNJA BEHARI CHUNDA Vs. MAHARAJA RADHA KISORE MANIKYA BAHADUR

Decided On February 05, 1903
NIKUNJA BEHARI CHUNDA Appellant
V/S
MAHARAJA RADHA KISORE MANIKYA BAHADUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are of opinion that the view expressed by the District Judge is correct. The Raja of Tipperah applied for the settlement of fair rent on certain lands, and the present plaintiffs, as tenants, admitted that they held certain lands liable to assessment; but they contended before the Settlement Officer that other lands claimed by the Raja as forming portions of his holding or taluq were held by them rent free, and were, therefore, not liable to assessment. On objections so taken, the Settlement Officer found that the rent of these other lands forming portions of the taluq had, on three previous occasions, been settled by the Revenue Officer and that, consequently, rents had been paid for them. Such a finding necessarily means that the objection taken that the lands ere held rent free was without any substance. The tenants have now brought this suit to have it declared that the lands were rent free and not liable to assessment.

(2.) The question arises, and the case has been so dealt with in the lower Court on appeal, whether the suit is barred as res judicata within the terms of Section 13, Civil Procedure Code. In the first place, it is clear that, within the terms of Section 9 of Act III (B.C.) of 1893, the order of the Settlement Officer in the Survey and Record of Rights under Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act of 1885 as originally passed was a decree, and inasmuch as it was not appealed against, it was final, and there can be little doubt, having regard to the terms of the judgment delivered by that Settlement Officer, that the point now raised was considered and decided.

(3.) The learned Pleader, who appears for the appellants, first of all claims the right of suit under Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act of 1885 as amended by Act III (B.C.) of 1898. But it is clear from the terms of Section 9 of the amending Act of 1898, which has been already referred to, that this amendment of Section 106 does not apply to the order of the Settlement Officer.