NIRANJAN PRODHAN Vs. JOGENDRA NATH PRODHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question which falls for determination in this Rule is whether before the amendment of sub-section (3) of section 7 of the West Bengal Bargadars Act by the Bargadar Amendment Act I of 1953, which came into operation on the 11th March, 1953, the Bhag Chas Conciliation Board constituted under the aforesaid Act had jurisdiction to make an award or order for payment of the price of owner's share of the bhag produce. The plaintiff instituted the suit out of which this Rule arises for the recovery of price of her share of barga produce on the 7th March, 1952. That suit terminated in a decree on the 10th Nov., 1952. On the 11th March, 1953, sub-section (3) of section 7 of the West Bengal Bargadars Act was amended by Act I of 1953 and by this amendment a proviso was added which runs as follows:

(2.) After obtaining the decree the plaintiff transferred it to the present petitioner Niranjan Pradhan who filed an application for execution. In the executing Court an objection was raised on behalf of the bargadar to the effect that the decree was without jurisdiction because the claim in the suit was for recovery of the price of bhag paddy which could be decided only by the Bhag Chas Conciliation Board which had been established in this local area on the 18th Oct., 1952 and as such under the terms of section 9(2) of the West Bengal Bargadars Act, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The executing Court allowed this objection and dismissed the execution case and against that order the petitioner who is a transferee of the decree has obtained the present Rule under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act.

(3.) There can be no question that if the suit which was instituted by the plaintiff came under one of the clauses enumerated in section 7(1) of the Bargadars Act, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. But Mr. Banerjee appearing for the petitioner has contended that prior to the amendment of 1953, the Bhag Chas Conciliation Board had jurisdiction to decide every dispute between the bargadar and owner with regard to "the division or delivery of the produce" in kind only. According to Mr. Banerjee under section 7(1) as it stood before the amendment of 1953, the Bhag Chas Conciliation Board had no jurisdiction to determine a dispute relating to division or delivery of the produce in cash and this power was conferred on the Board for the first time by the West Bengal Bargadars Amendment Act of 1953, which I have already quoted above. Under sub-section (3) of section 7 the decision of the Board is required to be in the form of an award where the dispute is in respect of the division of the produce and in other cases in the form of an order. Reading the different provisions of section 7 it seems that originally the power of the Board was confined to the division of delivery of the produce in kind only. But Mr. Roy appearing for the opposite party has invited my attention to the provisions of section 15 of the Act which is to the following effect: