RAMGOPAL BISWAS Vs. BHALOO MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only substantial question of law which arises in this appeal is whether the possession taken by a landlord of a raiyati or under-raiyati holding on the basis of an invalid surrender amounts to dispossession within the meaning of Article 3 of schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act entitling the landlord to claim the benefit of the special law of limitation provided therein. In order to appreciate how this controversial question of law has arisen it is necessary to state the following facts as also the findings of the courts below in brief.

(2.) The case as made out in the plaint was as follows. The disputed land described in the schedule of the plaint appertained to a raiyati holding of one Taluk Mondal bearing a rent of Rs. 51-7 as. under a tenure of one Bhalu Mondal,, the original Plaintiff of the trial court who died during the pendency of the second appeal in this Court and who has been substituted by his heirs, the present Respondents. Taluk was succeeded by three sons, Rajabali, Fazarali and Nilmoni, and a daughter Panchi Bibi. Eajabali died leaving some minor children as his heirs, and Fazarali died leaving a widow and some minor children. After the death of these two sons of Taluk Mondal, the holding of Rs. 51-7 as. was surrendered by all the tenants towards the latter part of 1345 B.S. and Bhalu Mondal entered into possession of the above holding and continued to possess all the lands of the holding, but the Defendants dispossessed him from a part of the holding, viz., C.S. Day 84 of Khatian 94 of Mouza Srimantapur in Asar 1356 B.S.

(3.) The Defendants denied the surrender and also challenged its validity and contended that they had taken settlement of the disputed land from some of the heirs of Taluk Mondal while they were in possession of the disputed land and they had never dispossessed Bhalu Mondal.