BIBHUTI BHUSAN DAS Vs. SATYA NARAYAN DEBANSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are appeals against three decrees of the District Judge of Birbhum affirming the decrees of the Munsif of Rampurhat decreeing three rent suits but rejecting the plaintiff's claim in each case for the Ashar kist of 1351 B. S. The appeals are by the plaintiff and relate to the rent of this kist.

(2.) THE sole question that arises for decision is the relative position of the plaintiff as girbidar or statutory mortgagee under Section 13 (4), Regulation VIII [8] of 1819. The plaintiff is a darpatnidar in respect of a patni held under the Maharaja of Burdwan. He came into possession of the patni under the provisions of Section 13 (4) in 1330 B. S. by depositing in the sale proceedings under the Regulation the amount of rent due for the patni. Subsequently, execution of a rent decree obtained by the Maharaja for rent of the patni, the patni was sold in auction in Rent EX. case No. 37 of 1940, the sale being confirmed on 5 -5 -1944.

(3.) THE lower appellate Court has referred to the decision in A. H. Forbes v. Bahadur Singh, 41 I. A. 91: (A. I. R. (1) 1914 P. C. 111) but has disposed of that decision by saying that the rent suits sought to be executed in that case were for rent due and decreed prior to the period for which rent was deposited by the appellant Forbes under Section 13 (4), Patni Taluks Regulation. In my opinion, the decision in question cannot be disposed of in this fashion. The real basis of the decision in that case was no doubt that the plaintiff who was seeking to execute the rent decree was no longer the landlord at the time of execution. The zemindar Dhanpat Singh the predecessor had before his death obtained the decree for the patni rent and transferred the decree to trustees. The zemindary itself had been transferred to another party. However, their Lordships of the Judicial Committee very clearly dealt also with the question arising under Section 13 (4), Patni Taluks Regulation, and they said that this objection formed an equally fatal objection to the application of the contesting defendants to bring to sale the patni tenure in execution of Dhanpat Singh's decree, That fatal objection was in their opinion clearly expressed namely that the appellant Forbes had made the deposit under Section 13 (4), Patni Taluks Regulation, and obtained a lien specified therein which has been described in the judgment as 'statutory salvage lien' arising not from any implication of the law bat under the express direction and declarations of the Act. They then continued :