LAWS(PAT)-1957-9-18

SACHITANANDAN PRASAD Vs. JANAK PRASAD GOSAIN

Decided On September 27, 1957
SACHITANANDAN PRASAD Appellant
V/S
JANAK PRASAD GOSAIN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise put of two rent suits, for recovery of chauraha rent in respect of the same holding but for different periods. The plaintiff and the defendants are common. Sachitanandan Prasad, the landlord, first instituted Rent Suit 3058 of 1951 in respect of years 1357 and 1358 Fasli and again another Rent Suit 110 of 1952 in respect of the subsequent year, namely 1359 fasli. The holding was recorded bhaoli in the survey record-of-rights. Janak Prasad Gir and others, the tenants, applied for commutation of rent under Section 40 of the Bihar Tenancy Act and the produce rent was commuted to money rent. The plaintiff landlord challenged the validity of the commutation and alleged that it was illegal, without jurisdiction and nor binding upon him. On these allegations he claimed chauraha rent ignoring the commuted rent. The defence in both the suits was common. The tenants defendants pleaded that the produce rent had been commuted to money rent that the commutation was perfectly legal and valid and binding upon the landlord and that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover from them the produce , rent.

(2.) It appears that Rent Suit 110 of 1952 was subsequently converted into a tide suit, since the validity of the order of commutation was in question and was numbered as Title Suit 110 of 1952.

(3.) In Rent Suit 3058 of 1951 both the Courts concurrently held that the commutation was legal and binding upon the landlords and gave a decree for money rent. The plaintiff has come up in Second Appeal which is 1158 of 1954. In the other suit namely, Title Suit 110 of 1952 the learned Munsif held that the commutation was legal and binding and hence gave the plaintiff a decree for money rent only. The plaintiff took an appeal to the District Judge and the appellate Court held that the commutation was illegal and not binding and remanded the case for a finding as to the quantity of produce and the price thereof. The defendants have now come up in Second Appeal, which is 314 of 1955.