SARAT CHANDRA CHATTERJEE Vs. ISWAR CHANDRA SHAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Purha and Paban, two brothers, held 7 highas of jote at a jama of Rs. 9. In 1292, defendants Nos. 1 to 3 who were four annas landlords took from Purna a qabuliat in respect of 5 of the land, namely 1 bigha 15 cottas oat of the 7 bighas, the boundaries given being, those of the 7 bighas.

(2.) It is contended that this created the defendants Nos. 1 to 3, the 16 annas landlords in relation to Purna and, therefore, when defendants Nos. 1 to 3 obtained a decree for arrears against Puma's son and sold the said land, 1 bigha, 15 cottas and themselves made the purchase, they acquired an indefeasible interest in the land against which, the title of the plaintiffs, arising under a purchase in execution of a decree on a mortgage prior to their decree and purchase, could not prevail. The fact of the boundaries being that of the entire holding, is I think, a settler and the defendants must be considered as fractional co-sharers. This is clear from the definition of the word holding in Section 3 Clause (9) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. See the cases of Hurry Churn Bose V/s. Ranjit Singh 25 C. 97 : 1 C.W.N. 521, Baidya Nath Dey Sarkar V/s. Sheikh Jhin 2 C.W.N. 44 : 25 C. 917, Haribole Brohmo v. Tasimuddin Mondul 2 C.W.N. 680 and Ahadulla Shaikh V/s. Gagan Mollah 2 C.L.J. 10.

(3.) The decree, therefore, obtained by defendants Nos. 1 to 3 is not a rent decree within the meaning of Tenancy Act.