HARI MAHATON Vs. JUGAL MAHATO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree of Sri Harihar Charan Choudhary, Small Cause Court Judge, Purulia, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought the suit for recovery of the price of 'bhag' paddy. The case of the plaintiff was that the land in ques- tion belongea to one Rabi Mahato who was a 'korfa' with respect co it, and he died leaving his widow Bhaimani and his sister Jurani. The plaintiff is the son of this Jurani, that is to say, the plaintiff is the sister's son of Rabi Mahton. According to the case of the plaintiff, Bhaimani inherited the land in question after the death of her husband and she gave the land to the defendant in 'bhag' cultivation in year 1356 B. S. In the month of Assarh of that year she married in 'sanga' form and before her marriage she asked the defendant to deliver the bhag paddy to the plaintiff and the defendant consented to do so. The suit was contested by the defendant who admitted that he was in possession of the land in question in the year 1356 B. S. but pleaded that he was not 'bhagidar' under Bhaimani, but was 'kut' bhagidar under Madan Singh the recorded tenant, and that he had given the 'kut' bhag of paddy to the said Madan Singh. He also contended that there was a serious question of title involved in this case and, as such, the suit was not triable in the Small Cause Court.

(2.) The learned Small Cause Court Judge found that Rabi Mahto was a 'Korfa' of the land in question and, after his death Bhaimani carne in possession of the same as 'korfa' thereof and the defendant was liable to pay 'bhag' paddy to the plaintiff. He also held that the Small Cause Court had jurisdiction to try the suit and on his above findings he decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff for recovery of the price of 'bhag' paddy and straw, but he rejected the prayer of the plaintiff for interest thereon. Against this decree the defendant has come up to this Court in revision under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.

(3.) Mr. S. K. Mazumdar appearing for the petitioner has raised three points in this case, namely, (1) that the case involved determination of a serious question of title and such it was not triable in Small Cause Court, (2) that this being a suit for realization of rent was not cognizable by a Small Cause Court and (3) that, in any view of the matter, on his own case of the plaintiff, the land having been given in bhag cultivation to the defendant by Bhaimani, the right to receive the produce could not be transferred to him without a written instrument.