RANIBALA DAS Vs. KANAILAL SHAW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs' case is that the disputed property was held by defendant no. 1 as a thika tenant. On the 20th Dec., 1957, the latter sold the same to one Kali Bala. By a registered kobala dated 14th Nov., 1962, the plaintiffs purchased the property from Kali Bala. Defendant No. 1 also joined in that transaction as a consenting party. On that date, the plaintiffs entered into an agreement that the latter would possess the property as a licensee for three years and a deed of reconveyance would be executed by the plaintiffs if the consideration of Rs. 5000.00 was paid within three years. Defendant no. 1 did not exercise such option within three years. The plaintiffs revoked the license and instituted the suit for eviction.

(2.) Defendant no. 1 resisted the claim on the ground that no sale was made but the transaction constituted a loan in substance.

(3.) The learned Munsif stated that the Misc. Case 76 of 1958 was filed by defendant no. 1 against Kali Bala under Sec. 36 of the Bengal Money Lenders Act on the ground that the former took a loan of Rs. 3500.00 from the latter. That application was rejected. After that decision the present question was barred by the principles of res judicata He stated that the defendant no. 1 was the plaintiffs licensee. The suit was therefore, decreed. An appeal was preferred by defendant no. 1 and that too was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on the same ground. Hence the present appeal.