KAMESHWAR PANDEY Vs. DEOLAL BARHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals arise out of three rent suits instituted by the common plaintiffs, who are the appellants here, against the different tenant-defendants for different holdings. In this Court the case has been argued on the admitted footing that the plaintiffs are the tenants of the holdings in suits and the defendants are the under-raiyats of the same.

(2.) It appears that the under-raiyats were inducted into these holdings by the plaintiffs sometime before 1939; and till then they had paid, rent to the plaintiffs on the bhaoli basis. But in the year 1939 applications were filed for commutation by the defendants against the plaintiffs. In the course of those proceedings ultimately petitions of compromise between them were filed; and as a result thereof the holdings were commuted on the basis of cash rent as it stated in the compromise petitions which are Exhibits B series-on the record. It is not denied that since the date of that commutation the plaintiffs realised rents from the defendants up to the year 1361 Fasli on the basis of cash rent as agreed upon between the parties. Thereafter, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendants defaulted in payment of rent. Hence the suits for the realisation of arrears for the period from 1362 to 1365 Fasli. Originally, the claim was made on the basis of Nakdi rent alone. Subsequently, however, the plaintiffs got the relief portions of the plaints amended; and as a, result of that amendment, there was an alternative prayer made that if the Court found that the commutation proceedings were void in law, then a decree for the arrears of rent should be passed on the bhaoli basis. In the two Courts below the main points contested between the parties were two : 1. Whether the plaintiffs were raiyats or tenure-holders and 2. Whether the commutation proceedings were void. Both the Courts below on these two points have held; (1) that the plaintiffs are raiyats and not tenure-holders and (2) that the commutation proceedings were void in law as they were hit by the terms of Section 40 of the Bihar Tenancy Act.

(3.) Accordingly, the trial Court decreed the suits on the bhaoli basis. But in appeal that part of the judgment has been reversed and the lower appellate Court has decreed the suits on cash basis. Hence these appeals by the plaintiffs.