RAMLA Vs. BINJ RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants second appeal against the appellate judgment and decree of the Additional Commissioner Jaipur dated 28.7.59 in a suit for arrears of rent.

(2.) The plaintiffs in this case sued the defendants i.e. the appellants for a sum of Rs. 1025/ - being the price of 65 maunds of grain outstanding against the defendants for the Smt. year 2003 and Smt. 2004. The claim of the plaintiff was based on an Ijaranama Ex. P. I purported to have been executed by defendant Ramla on his own behalf as well as other. The rent stipulated in the Ijaranama was 130 maunds grain in Kham equivalent to 65 maunds pucca including wheat 25 maunds, barley 65 maunds for the rabi crop and 40 maunds of Bajra for the Kharif. It was further alleged that the stipulated rent had remained unpaid, therefore the suit for its recovery. The suit was filed in the year 1947 under the relevant provisions of the Jaipur Tenancy Act. Two separate written statements were filed by each of the defendant sued i.e. by Ramla as well as Gopi. Both of them denied the plaint allegations, particularly the execution of Ex. P. 2 but in further particulars admitted that for the land in dispute the defendant had been paying to the plaintiffs the assessed rent as well as a sum of Rs. 30/ - in addition because the Kothi, i.e. the well was sunk at the expenses of the plaintiffs.

(3.) On the above allegations of the parties the trial Court framed two issues, namely (1) whether the document Ex. P. 1 had been executed by Ramla on his own behalf and as well as on behalf of the others and was binding on the defendants, and (2) whether grain rents valued at Rs. 1025/ - were due to the plaintiffs from the defendants. At the conclusion of the Court found issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiffs but on issue No. 2 it came to the conclusion that though the proceedings commenced under the provisions of the Jaipur Tenancy Act as they were pending when the Rajasthan Tenancy Act came into force, they were to be decided and determined in accordance with the provisions of the latter Act. The trial Court, therefore proceeded to fix the quantum of rent in accordance with the provisions of the latter Act and purporting to act under Sec.99 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act decreed the rent in favour of the plaintiffs at twice the rent found to be assessed i.e. Rs. 118.5.0. Thus the decree was passed for a sum of Rs. 236.10.0. Aggrieved by this order the defendants went up in appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner, who confirmed the findings of the Court below by his impugned order and dismissed the appeal.