LAKSHMI KANTA JHA Vs. LAL BIHARI SARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal was filed by MaharajdhiraJ Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga, but after his death his name has been deleted and the name of Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Jha has been mentioned as the appellant in the memorandum of this appeal. This appeal by the plaintiff appellant arises out of a suit for recovery of arrears of mokarrari rent for 1355 to 1357 Faslis in respect of a tenure situated in village Pathra Tinauri, touzi No. 4100. The defendants were the tenure-holders and the proprietary right in the rent-claimed tenure belonged to Rani Bhuneshwari Kuer of Tikari Raj. She had leased out her proprietary right in the said tenure and other properties to the Maharajdhiraj (plaintiff), proprietor of the Darbhanga Raj, by a Sadhaua Pataua mortgage bond which entitled the plaintiff to realise rent of the said tenure. The casa of the plaintiff was that the said proprietary right together with the leasehold interest of the plaintiff vested in the State of Bihar under the Blhar Land Reforms Act on 3-11-1951 but his right to realise the rent for the period in suit was intact. The Tekari Raj was in heavy arrears of cess payable to the Collector of Gaya and hence the proprietary right (in lease) of the plaintiff in the said tenure was attached by the Collector under Section 99 of the Cess Act. On account of that attachment, the defendants were restrained from paying mokarrari rent and cess to the plaintiff and the plaintiff as well was restrained from realising mokarrari rent from them. The attachment was, however, withdrawn on 27-6-1955 and thereafter the plaintiff became entitled to realise the rent of the tenure. The defendants had not paid the mokarrari rent of the tenure for the years in suit and the certificate cases filed by the Collector for the realisation of the mokarrari rent were struck off. The plaintiff thus made a claim for Rs. 4741/14/- in Rent Suit No. 3 of 1957 instituted on 12-7-1957 and this appeal arises out of that suit.

(2.) Defendant No. 1 only contested the suit and his case was that there was no attachment of the leasehold interest of the plaintiff under Section 99 of the Cess Act. The other plea taken by him was that the suit was barred by limitation and also under Section 4(d) of the Land Reforms Act.

(3.) The points for determination according to the trial Court were these: