RAJA SURAJPAL SINGH Vs. RAMGATI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by defendant 1 against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Arrah who affirmed the decision of the Munsif of Buxar. The plaintiff had1 sued for recovery of arrears of rent for the years 1347-1350 in respect of 7.09 acres of land. The plaintiff alleged to be the malik of four annaa share in the takhta. in suit by virtue of a rehan deed executed in his favour by defendants 2 to 6. Defendant 1 is also a cosharer malik of that takhta. He had purchased the rent claimed land from the original raiyat at ft rent sale. According to the defendant, he had settled the land after his purchase with Nathun Mahton who, he alleged, is a necessary party to the suit. His further defence was that the rent had been reduced by the Rent Reduction Officer and he was liable to pay rent at that rate to the plaintiff for his proportionate share and not at the original rate. Both the Courts below, as I have already indicated, rejected his defence and decreed the suit at the rate of rent claimed in the plaint.

(2.) Mr. Kanhaiyaji on behalf of the (appellant (defendant 1) has raised three points. The first point was to the effect that Nathun Mahto was a necessary party to the suit, having regard to the provisions of Section 22(2), Bihar Tenancy Act. The second point urged by him was that the rent was properly reduced by the Rent Reduction Officer and, and therefore, the plaintiff could not get a decree at the original rate of rent. His third point was that the plaintiff mentioned in the plaint that1 the annual rental for the holding was Rs. 41-15-3, but had been given a decree for his share at the rate of Rs. 7-9.3.

(3.) As to the first point, as far as I have been able to understand the submission of Mr. Kanhaiyaji, it ia that when a odsharer purqhasea ajj, occupftncy right in land, of a tenant in whom all the cosharers are interested, he holds the land subject to the payment to his co-prpprietora. or the share of the rent which may be from time to time payable to them, If he inducts on to the land a third person such third person may either be a tenure holder or a raiyat of the until, Defendant 1 having settled the land with Nathuh Mahtont Nathun Mahton became the raiyat of the land and it wag necessary to make him a rtyat the suit. In my opinion, Nathun Mahfcon might have been a proper party, but certainly was not a necessary party. As between defendant, X and his cosharers, the only matter for decision was as to the liability of the defendant towards his cosharers for the rent of the land purchased by him from the original tenant. Section 22(a) clearly recognised that when an occupancy right in land is transferred to n person Jointly interested in the land as proprietor, he shall be entitled to hold the land subject to the payment to his go-proprietors this share of the rent which may be from time to time payable to them. The fact that he sublets the land to some one else cannot deprive his co-sharers of the right to realise from him their share of the rent which may be from time to time payable, In Kirtya Nanda V/s. Ram Lal A.I.R. 1926 Pat. 580 Ross J. observed with reference to Section 22(2), Bihar Tenancy Act, as follows: The question is not free from difficulty; but it is important to observe the exact language of Section 22(2). It is not enacted that if the transferee sublets the land to a third person, such person shall be a tenure holder on a raiyat, as the case may be, in respect of the land, but that gush person shall be deemed, to be a tenure holder or a raiyat; that is to say, the section itself recognises the relationship m artificial and, by implication suggests that, by making such a settlement, the transferee is not a landlord, but that the peculiar status conferred Upon him by the section still continues notwithstanding the settlement. I myself can see no sufficient reason to doubt what was said by Rosa J. in the case just-cited. My own impression of the section is that no matter what the purchasing co-sharer does by way of subletting the land to a third person vis-a-vis himself and his co-sharers his liability to pay the shares of the rent to his co-sharers remains unaffected. Having regard to the view which I hold, it is clear that Nathun Mahton was not a necessary party and his absence from the position of a party in the litigation does not go to the root o? the question.