PURNA CHANDRA SAHU Vs. RAGHU BARIHA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of possession of certain SIR lands attached to a Thikadari tenure. Plaintiff No. 1 is the son of Ex -Thikadar, Raghu Bariha who is Defendant No. 3 Plaintiff No. 2 is his uncle belonging to the junior branch of the family which had a common ancestor. Defendant No. 2 Lal Sadananda Singh is the Zamindar of Borasambar who had filed a suit for arrears of rent and obtained a decree for rent against Defendant No. 3 and took delivery of possession of the suit lands in execution of that decree. Defendant No. 1 (the Appellant) took a lease of these lands" from Defendant No. 2 and entered upon them in Jyeshta of 1941 which led to the institution of the suit out of which this appeal arises.

(2.) THE trial Court held that the landlord was not entitled to eject the Thikadar from the SIR lands and that, in any case, the Plaintiffs are not bound by the decree against the Thikadar.

(3.) THE next question is whether in execution of this rent -decree, the family members could be ejected from their possession. The Thikadar could certainly have been ejected from his office, but mere non -payment of rent would not suffice to justify ejectment from the SIR holds. On the other hand, on his being ejected from the office of Thikadar he becomes a tenant of the lands with occupancy rights. This has been discussed at length in Tirtha v. Lal Sadanand Singh, I.L.R. 1 Cutt. 139 by a bench of this Court of which I was a member. The Court below was right in relying on that decision and arriving at the conclusion that though the tenure lapsed to the Zamindar the SIR lands did not revert to him. The Plaintiffs must accordingly be held nab to have lost their right to remain in possession of the lands.