ABHIMANYU HALDER Vs. TARANI SEN HALDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts leading up to this appeal lie within a short compass and they may be briefly stated as follows:

(2.) The Appellants, who were the Plaintiffs in the trial court, claimed to have purchased the suit properties from pro forma Defendant No. 5 Bakyamoni, by a registered kobala, ex. 3, sometime in Ashar, 1354 B.S. It appears, however, that Bakyamoni's husband, Rai Charan had, during his life time, sold the said properties to Defendant No. 1 in the benami of the latter's sons, Defendant Nos. 2 to 4, sometime in 1350 B.S. After Rai Charan's death, Bakyamoni. as his heir and legal representative, applied for restoration of the said properties under Section 4 of the Bengal Alienation of Agricultural Land (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1944. (Ben. v. of 1944.) That application was eventually allowed and she was directed to pay back the sale price, etc. (Rs. 49-4) in certain instalments, ranging from 1354 B.S. to 1358 B.S. For payment of the outstanding balance of these instalments and for other purposes, she sold the suit properties to the present Plaintiffs in Ashar 1354 B.S. Before the sale, Bakyamoni had paid Rs. 29-12 out of the above sum of Rs. 49-4 and only a small balance (Rs. 19-8) was outstanding on the date of sale which was to be paid by the vendees (the present Plaintiffs) out of the consideration money of the kobala (ex. 3). This the Plaintiffs sent to Defendant No. 1 by money order on March 20, 1948, but it was refused and, thereafter, the Defendants threatened to dispossess the Plaintiffs which necessitated the institution of the present suit for declaration of the Plaintiffs' title and confirmation of their possession and, the suit having been dismissed by the two courts below, the present second appeal has been filed by the Plaintiffs.

(3.) The courts below have held that, in view of Section 7 of the Bengal Alienation of Agricultural Land (Temporary Provisions) Act. 1944, the Plaintiffs' kobala was invalid in law and the vendees thereunder, namely, the present Plaintiffs, acquired no title under their said purchase. In that view, they have dismissed the Plaintiffs' suit. It is necessary, therefore, to consider what, in law, is the true effect of that section.