INDER CHANDRA Vs. SHRI RADHA KRISHNA JI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the plaintiffs from a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Arrah confirming a decision of the Munsif of Sasaram.

(2.) The appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration of plaintiffs title to 19 acres of land in plot No. 257 of khata No. 99 in mouza Bhabua, tauzi No. 12553 and for recovery of possession. The plaintiffs allege that this is their bakasht while the defendant claims it as raiyati. Formerly the land in dispute formed part of an estate the co-owners of which were in separate possession of parts of the estate. The land with which we are concerned was in the possession of one Gajadhar Prasad. Gajadhar Prasad gave a thika of the land tit which he was thus in possession to one Mangal Prasad. The predecessor of the defendant, who was a settled raiyat of the village, was inducted on to the disputed land by Mangal Prasad and, it is claimed, thus acquired occupancy rights in it. As a result of collectorate partition among the co-owners of the estate the disputed land has now fallen into the patti of the plaintiffs who claim that by virtue of Section 99, Estates Partition Act, they are entitled to possession. The Courts below have found that the defendants predecessor-in-title was a settled raiyat of the village and that the settlement of the disputed land with him was bona fide and that consequently the-defendant has occupancy rights.

(3.) The question which arises in this appeal also arose in Rajendra Narayan v. Hargobind Chowdhury A.I.R. 1941 Pat. 19 which was decided by a Bench of which I was a member, on 17 October 1939. In the judgment of that appeal the case law on the subject has-been thoroughly discussed by Meredith J. There also the question was whether a person settled on land by a cosharer in exclusive possession of a portion of it by arrangement with the other cosharers can acquire occupancy rights in the land. The answer to this question was held to depend upon whether the person settled on the land became a tenant of all the cosharers or whether he only became a tenant of the person who settled the land with him. The decision was that where it can be held that the cosharer had an implied authority, and does represent the entire body of landlords by virtue of that implied authority, then the settlement by him is binding upon all. A tenancy interest is created under the entire body of landlords, and nothing in Section 99, Estates Partition Act, can prevent the accrual of occupancy rights in appropriate cases, which will be effective even after partition.