MUCHIRAM CHAND Vs. PARESH NATH MAITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For a proper appreciation of the points in issue reference has to be made to certain proceedings which had taken place before the filing of the two suits out of which the present appeals arise.

(2.) The lands described in Khatian No. 238, situated in Mouza Harendranagore in Touzl No. 2858 in the district of 24-Pergannas belonged to the plaintiffs who will be hereafter described the Maitis as Chakdars. Certain persons who will be described hereafter as the Pramaniks were recorded as settled raiyats in respect of the said lands. The interests recorded in the subordinate Khatians Nos. 239 to 243 were entered in the name of other persons. The Maitis filed a suit for the realization of the arrears of rent for 1345 to 1349 B.S. in respect of the 'raiyati' holding. The persons impleaded as defendants were the Pramaniks as also Muchiram Chand on the allegation that it was being claimed by the latter that he was a co-sharer. This suit was decreed 'ex parte'. In execution of the decree, a sale proclamation was issued and the Maiti decree-holders purchased the same. It will have to be considered as to what was put up to sale in this execution case. After the issue of the sale certificate an application was filed by the Maitis under Section 167, Bengal Tenancy Act for annulling the encumbrance describing the same as the Korfa right held by Muchiram under the 'raiyati' on the strength of leases taken by Muchiram from others which had been sold in the rent sale. According to the Maitis, the notice of annulment was duly served. According to Muchiram it was not. About this time Muchiram filed an application for setting aside the sale which had taken place in execution of the rent decree mentioned above. This application was ultimately dismissed.

(3.) On 27-6-1945, the Maitis filed Title Suit No. 53 of 1945 for the declaration of their title to the lands in suit describing the same as apperttaining to Khatians Nos. 238, 239 and 241, inclusive of the subordinate Khatians. It was alleged that the plaintiffs were entitled to 'khas' possession after eviction of defendant 1 from all the lands in suit if the former are dispossessed from the tenancy of the suit; otherwise for confirmation of possession.