ANATH NATH MAITRA Vs. KUMAR KESHAB NARAIN ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the 4 Bhadra 1303, B.S., the defendant No. 5 gave a patni lease of certain property to the plaintiff. It was a lease in the ordinary terms adopted in the case of patni settlements, that is to say, it was to be in force for ever. There was a saving clause in the lease with which we shall presently deal.

(2.) In Jaisto 1304, there occurred an earthquake by reason of which the dwelling house of the lessor, on a certain portion of the land covered by the saving clause, was destroyed, and.the materials of that house were sold by the lessor, defendant No. 5, to the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 in Agrahayan 1304. It appears that the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 were then on the land.

(3.) The plaintiff's suit was brought to obtain khas possession of the area 10 bighas, which is the subject-matter of the saving clause in the patni lease, and he based his cause of action on a possessory decree passed against him on the 26 January 1906. The Court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's suit on various grounds, more especially, on a construction of the saving clause already mentioned.