PRAFULLA KUMAR KHAN Vs. JOGENDRA NATH MAHATO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals by the defendants are directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge affirming the decree passed by the learned Munsif in Title Suit No. 2 of 1962 in favour of the plaintiff. The said suit was instituted by the plaintiff against the, defendants inter alia for a declaration of his tenancy right in respect of 3. 99 acres of land comprising 6 (six) plots of Rayati, khatian No. 18 of Mauza Sarasbedya, p. S. Salbani, hereinafter referred to as the suit land. The case put forward in the plaint is that Prafulla Kumar Khan, the defendant No. 1 and his brother late Amulya Kumar Khan, since deceased, the father of the defendant Nos. 2 and 3, were the owners of the suit land in equal share. It is alleged that the defendant No. 1 was the Karta of the Joint family consisting of himself and the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and he settled the suit land with the plaintiff in the year 1355 B. S. in "thika Bhag Jama" at a fixed. produce rent of 7 Arrahas of paddy per year. It is alleged that the defendant Nos. 4 to 6 collusively obtained a kobala with regard to half share of the defendant No. 1 of the suit land and also instituted a number of Bhagchas cases before the Bhagchas Board alleging that the plaintiff was a Bargadar under them. It is further alleged that since the defendants there atened to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land, the plaintiff had to file the said suit for declaration of his tenancy right in the suit land and for permanent injunction.

(2.) THE defendant No. 1 and the defendant Nos. 4 to 6 jointly contested the suit by filling one written statement. It is the case of the defendant no. 1 in the written statement that he did not settle the suit land with the plaintiff in any form of tenancy and he used to cultivate personally his demarcated half share in the suit land and thereafter sold the same to the defendant Nos. 4 to 6 in Chaitra 1366 B. S. The defendant Nos. 4 to 6 inter alia contended that they made Bhagbilli of those demarcated suit land to the plaintiff only in Baisakh 1367 B. S. But, is alleged, the plaintiff never delivered any share of the produce to them. The contesting defendants totally denied the plaintiff's status as a tenant and contended that the plaintiff held the suit land as mere Bargadar under the defendants. According to the defendant Nos. ' 4 to 6 the plaintiff has no title or interest in the suit land.

(3.) THE learned Munsif construed the expression "thika Bhag Jama" at a fixed produce rent as a tenancy. In coming to the said conclusion he relied on three receipts showing realisation of paddy from the plaintiff by the defendant No. 2 for the years 1366, 1367 and 1368 B. S. According to, the learned Munsif, a Bargadar is liable to deliver a share of produce which varies from year to year depending on the quantity of the yield. But since in this case a fixed quantity of produce was to be delivered every year irrespective of the yield, the learned Munsif held that relationship of tenancy existed by and between the plaintiff and the defendants. He held, that the status of the plaintiff is that of a tenant and cannot any circumstances be called Bargadar. He, therefore, decreed the suit.