SASADHAR HAZRA Vs. PULIN CHANDRA KAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is preferred by the defendants landlords against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court reversing the decision of the trial Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit.

(2.) The suit out of which the present appeal arises was instituted by the tenant Krishna Ch. Kayal inter alia for declaration of his title and recovery of possession against his landlords, the present appellants and their bargadar Charu Chandra Purkait, the defendant No.1. The case of the plaintiff briefly is that he is an occupancy raiyat of the disputed lands under the landlords-defendants at an annual rental of Rs.18.10.8 paid by him to them in instalments but the landlords being powerful and influential, did not grant him dakhilas. As the plaintiff did not agree to the proposal made by the landlords' Officer, Nalini Kanto Kabiraj either for enhancement of rent or for surrender of the holding the landlords had a collusive document, viz., "Bhag Kabuliyat" executed by the defendant No.1, Charu Chadnra Purkait a relation of the said officer on 2nd Jaistha 1352 B.S. and tried to forcibly dispossess the plaintiffs in the year 1354 B.S. when the paddy was ripe for harvesting the plaintiff then instituted a proceeding against both the landlords and bargaders under Section 144 Criminal Procedure Code and thereafter the landlords in their turn instituted a similar proceeding against him in the same Court of local Sub-divisional Officer. During the pendency of these proceedings the standing paddy of 1354 B.S. was auction sold by the criminal Court and defendant No.1 the bargadar purchased it for Rs.205/-. In 1355-56 B.S. to the same court leased out the lands to the plaintiff at a rental of Rs.100/- and Rs.135/- respectively and thus the possessed the lands during those two years. Both the proceedings in the criminal Court eventually were converted into proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code which were finally decided by the criminal Court on 10.5.50 in favour of the bargader defendant No.1 and thus from 1367 B.S. he began to possess the lands. It was also alleged that in the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. the defendants set up a plea of surrender by the plaintiff of the disputed land to the landlords and that is how he felt aggrieved and was compelled to file the suit.

(3.) Both the landlords defendants and the bargadars contested the suit by filing separate written statements. Their case substantially is that the plaintiff surrendered the suit lands in 1342 B.S. and thereafter they had these lands cultivated by the successive Bargadars from 1342 B.S. to 1348 B.S. The defendant No.1 was inducted as Bargadar from 1349 B.S. and subsequently a Bhag Kabuliyat was executed by him in 1354 B.S. in respect of the disputed lands along with other lands. The plaintiff's suit, it is further alleged, is barred both by general and special law of limitation.