ANANDI MANDAL Vs. TEKARI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the settlement by virtue of Kabuliat (Exhibit 2), executed by one Ayodhya Mandal in favour of Raja Krityanand Singh Bahadur and others (of Banaili), dated 29 -6 -1934, was for agricultural purposes is the cardinal question for decision in the instant appeal.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the defendants -appellants has contended that on true interpretation of Paragraphs 3 and 7 of the aforesaid Kabuliat, it is apparent that the settlement was not for agricultural purposes and the lease was governed by the provisions of Transfer of Property Act and not by the Bihar Tenancy Act, whereas, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff -respondents has submitted that on a harmonious interpretation of the aforesaid two paragraphs, it is apparent that the settlement was for agricultural purposes and the lease was governed by the Bihar Tenancy Act and not by the Transfer of Property Act.

(3.) In order to appreciate the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, a few facts need to be stated. This appeal is by the defendants against a judgment of affirmance. Interpreting the relevant paragraphs of the Kabuliat (Exhibit 2). both the courts below have concurrently held that the settlement was for agricultural purposes and, in that view of the matter, it was the provision of the Bihar Tenancy Act which applied in the case and not that of the Transfer of Property Act. Admittedly, the disputed land was a Ditch -Garirajanus Khas under Raj Banaili. The plaintiffs case was that they took settlement of the disputed land in the name of Vadhya Mandal from Raj Banaili and a registered Kabuliat was accordingly executed on 29 -6 -1934 in proof of the settlement and the plaintiffs, after settlement, filled up the Ditch and began to cultivate It after levelling the same. The plaintiffs case further was that they all along paid rent to Raj Benaili and also deposited rent in favour of the Raj under Section 61 of the Bihar Tenancy Act and that after the vesting of the estate, they were paying rent to the Government. The plaintiffs claim that they were all along coming in possession of the suit land since the date of their settlement and that they being settled Raiyat of the village acquired a right of occupancy in the suit land. The plaintiffs further case was that some criminal case cropped up and the defenants, in cllusion with the malas of the Raj, also brought into existence a Kabuliat dated 15 -4 -1940 in respect of the land in suit which was all collusive and fraudulent and defendants never acquired any right to the suit land on the basis of the said Kabuliat and that the rent receipts granted to them by the males of the Raj were neither legal nor valid. The plaintiffs further alleged that the report of the Deputy Collector, and Reforms, on a petitioner filed by the defendants, was against the actual state of affairs. This necessitated filing of the suit by the plaintiffs for declaration of title and confirmation of possession or in the alternative for recovery of possession in respect of 1 Bigha 1 katha and 5 Dhurs of land appertaining to plot No. 14, under Khata No. 76, situate in Mauza Amari, in the district of Monghyr, as detailed in the plaint.