MAHARAJ SINGH Vs. BUDHU CHAMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Clause la of the Letters Patent by the defendants in a suit for ejectment. Admittedly the suit land forms part of an occupancy holding of the plaintiffs, the incidents of which are governed by the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. The plaintiffs' case was that about 10 years ago Rachhi Singh, deceased father of defendant No. 1 and husband of defendant No. 2, took dar-raiyati settlement of the suit land from the plaintiffs and about 6 years ago he built a house-on a part of the suit land on condition that the house would toe demolished and the suit land restored to its former condition and delivered to the plaintiffs on demand. After the death of Rachhi Singh, the defendants have been in possession of the suit land. On 16th of July, 1945 the plaintiffs, served a notice on them to vacate the land. As they did not do so, the plaintiffs instituted the present suit in 1946.

(2.) The suit was contested by defendant No. 1, who will be referred to hereinafter as the defendant, and his defence in substance was that the plaintiffs settled the suit land with Rachhi Singh under a deed dated the 15th Aghan 1325 fs. on an annual cash rent of Rs. 9-4-6 and it was agreed between the parties that Rachhi Singh would acquire permanent right in the land by virtue of the settlement; Rachhi Singh thereafter built a big house and dug a well on the land at a cost of about Rs. 10,000/-; the plaintiffs, therefore, are not entitled to eject the defendants. It was also pleaded that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit.

(3.) The learned Munsif who tried the suit held that the lease relied upon by the defendants contravened the provisions of Section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act and was, therefore, invalid. He, however, held that as the defendants' predecessor was inducted on the land on the assurance that he would have a permanent right in the land, the plaintiffs were not entitled to eject the defendants. He accordingly dismissed the suit. On the question of jurisdiction, he held that the suit was cognizable by the civil Court.