LAWS(CAL)-1949-5-1

MAYA DEBI Vs. RAJLAKSHMI DEBI

Decided On May 02, 1949
SM.MAYA DEBI Appellant
V/S
SM.RAJLAKSHMI DEBI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals arise out of proceedings in execution of decrees for rent. In First Miscellaneous Appeal No. 83 of 1945, the appellant is Sm. Maya Debi. First Miscelloneous Appeal No. 22 of 1948 and First Miscellaneous Appeal No. 145 of 1947 arise out of the same execution proceedings. In F. m. A, 22 of 1948, the appellants are Probodh Kumar Roy and Pabitra Kumar Roy. In F. m. A. 145 of 1947, the appellants are Kshitish Chandra Roy and Shib Chandra Roy. The facts common to all these appeals may be stated now.

(2.) The Maharaja of Cossimbazar was the proprietor of a zemindary under which a putni was held by one Sarat Moni Debi whose interest is now represented by Maya Debi. Under the putni there were several dar-putnies. We are concerned with three of such dar-putnies in these appeals. One of the dar-putnies was held by the Midnapore Zemindary Company. A second Dar-putni was held by Satish Chandra Roy, since deceased, Kshitish Chandra Roy and Stub Chandra Roy and Suryyapada Dutta. A third dar-putni waa held by the said Roys and Dutt and Bibhuti Bhusan Pal Choudhury and three others. The putni of Sarat Moni Debi was put up for sale under Regulation, VIII [8] of 1819 on 17th November 1930. On that date the Midnapore Zemindary Company, one of the dar-putni-dars deposited a sum of Rs. 22,974-5-3 pies and saved the putni from sale. The deposit was made under the provisions of Section 13 (4), Putni Regulation (Regulation via [8] of 1819).

(3.) On an application by the Midnapore Zemindary Company, the company was put in possession of the putni on 26th November 1980. The company continued in possession till the end of Bhadra 1352 B.s. On 10th August 194fr the company gave a notice to Maya Debi the defaulting putnidar expressing their intention to relinquish possession on the expiry of the month of Bhadra 1352. The notice has been marked EX. A and is printed in the paper book of P. M. A. 22 of 1948, the terms whereof will be adverted to hereafter. We now come to P.M. A, No. 83 of 1945, in which the appellant, as we have said, is Maya Debi.