LANGAT SINGH Vs. RAI RADHA KISHEN BAHADUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The village of Raju Paker, Pergannah Basera, in the district of Mozafferpur appears to have been originally held in three shares, two of which aggregating 12 annas were held by Baboo Nonit Lal and a four anna share by the plaintiffs. The defendant, Langat Singh, took a thicca of an eight anna share from Baboo Nonit Lai and afterwards purchased the remaining 4 anna share in the village excluding the share of the plaintiffs. It appears that his intrusion into the village as a part proprietor was resented by the plaintiffs and that he had considerable difficulty in realising the rent, both of the 8 anna share which he held as thiccadar and of the 4 anna share which he held as proprietor. In consequence, he had to bring many suits against the tenants to recover arrears of rent for these two shares and they were contested by the tenants and the co-sharers on the ground that he had no right of separate collection. In the end, he obtained decrees, on the 30 June 1900 after contest, for recovery of his 12 anna share of the rent, 8 annas as thiccadar and 4 annas as proprietor. In March 1901, in execution of the decrees, he went to attach the lands of the tenants judgment-debtors and, in those execution proceedings, 36 claims were put in by one Chandadhur Misser and 14 by one Sheo Nandan Pattak, each of them claiming to have purchased the rights of the tenants defendants before Langat Singh instituted his 50 suits. It is to be observed that the dates of the kobalas, executed in favour of Sheo Nandan Pattak, were in June 1899 and of those executed in favour of Chandadhur Misser were in April 1899. These claims were allowed by the executing Court on the 11 May 1901 and the Munsif dismissed the plaintiff's (the present defendants ) applications for execution. Thereupon, on the 14 April 1902, Langat Singh filed 50 regular suits alleging that Chandadhur Misser and Sheo Nandan Pattak were the servants and creatures of the other co-sharers, the plaintiffs in the present suit, and were, in fact, their benamdars and also that there was no real transfer to them of the rights of the tenants. In all those suits, he made the present plaintiffs defendants 3rd. party; and the plaintiffs filed written statements in which they supported the defence of the claimant defendants Chandadhur, Misser and Sheo Nandan Pattak, and alleged that those two persons were bona fide purchasers of the holdings in Raja Paker. On the 3 April 1903, he obtained decrees in all the suits and those decrees were upheld on appeal by the District Judge on the 25 July 1904. On the 18 September, Langat Singh purchased the holdings of all the fifty tenants in execution of his rent decrees and obained possession on the 26 and 27 August 1904.

(2.) A suit was then brought by the plaintiffs, the other proprietors of the village Raja Paker, for partition of the village and, on the 6 December 1905, the partition was completed and allotments of the shares of the different co-sharers in the lands in the village were made. Within the allotment made to the present plaintiffs were included some of the holdings which had been purchased by Langat Singh in execution of his rent decrees and Langat Singh refused to give up possession of those holding's to the plaintiffs alleging that he had purchased the tenants rights in them. In consequence, the present suit was instituted on the 22 July, 1907 by the plaintiffs in order to obtain a declaration of their title as proprietors of these lands and to recover khas possession of the same from the defendant Langat Singh with mesne profits. The area covered by these holdings compromises 108 bighas 1 cotta 11 dhurs of land.

(3.) The main ground, on which the plaintiffs based their claim, was that there was no custom in the village of transferring occupancy rights without the consent of the landlord and that, therefore, the defendant Langat Singh, having as a part proprietor of the village purchased the holdings in execution of decrees for recovery of his share only of the rent, acquired no title to the holdings by his purchase. The defence taken by the defendant Langat Singh was that he had purchased the lands in execution of decrees for arrears of rent, that he had obtained possession through the Court and that, therefore, he was entitled to hold them as kasht lands. It was also contended that the suit of the plaintiffs was barred by the doctrine of res judicata and that the plaintiffs were estopped from bringing the present suit by reason of the judgments in the suits brought by Langat Singh in April 1902 to which suits the plaintiffs were parties and also by reason of their conduct in the course of those suits.