JAGABANDU DUTTA Vs. MANECK HOME

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal brought by the defendants in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession with regard to five plots of land, namely, plots Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. These plots were recorded in the survey under khewat No. 4 which was the Pradhani tenure of the defendant No. 3. This Pradhani tenure was sold in execution of a decree for arrears of rent and purchased by the holder of Khewat No. 3, which was a mukarrari khewat, in the year 1918. The plaintiffs' case is that the mukarraridar then settled the entire village consisting of Khewats Nos. 3 and 4 with them in darmukarrari right by a registered document dated the 25th of September 1919. On the 28th of September 1919, the plaintiffs made an ijara settlement with the defendant No. 3 of the right to realise rent from the tenants of the village. The lands in suit had been abandoned by their respective tenants even before the khanapuri stage of the survey, and the plaintiffs' contention is that as a result of the sale of the Pradhani tenure these plots also passed to the auction-purchaser. It was further alleged that after the plaintiffs had taken the darmukarrari settlement they reclaimed these plots and converted them into paddy fields. After the ijara in favour of defendant No. 3 with regard to the right to realise rent from the tenants of the village, the defendant No. 3 executed a patta dated 26-7-39 in favour of defendants 1 and 2 in respect of the plots in dispute, and the allegation is that on the strength of this patta the defendants 1 and 2 began to interfere with the plaintiffs' possession. There were criminal cases between the parties and in a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal P.C., it was held that the defendants had been in possession of the disputed plots, and that led to the institution of this present suit.

(2.) The suit was contested by the defendants 1 and 2 who are the appellants before this Court, and their contention was that the sale of the Pradhani tenure was void in law, and that the defendant No. 3 continued to be the Pradhan even after the sale. It was further contended by them that before the creation of the darmukarrari interest in favour of the plaintiffs, the defendant No. 3 had converted this land into a paddy field and had thus acquired occupancy or korkar right therein.

(3.) The courts below have concurrently held that by the auction sale of 1918 the entire Pradhani interest including these abandoned lands passed to the darmukarraridar, and that it was the plaintiffs and not the defendant No. 3 who converted these lands into paddy fields.