NARAIN MULLICK Vs. BADI ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the years 1284 and 1285 the plaintiffs leased from the ghatwals of mouza Aljhara a chak principally consisting of jungle, which is said to contain 300 bighas of land. One lease was from the ghatwals of a 4 annas share, the annual rent being fixed in perpetuity at Rs. 4- 12, the other lease was from the ghatwals who owned the remaining 12 annas share, the fixed rent being Rs. 10 and a bonus of Rs. 36 having been paid.

(2.) The plaintiffs, alleging that they had been dispossessed of 50 bighas of the property by the present ghatwals, sued for Rs. 55, damages for trees cut and for recovery of possession of the said lands, in which they alleged that they had a permanent title, and had also acquired a right of occupancy.

(3.) The Munsif held that the holding was ryoti, and that the plaintiffs had acquired a right of occupancy. On appeal by the defendants, the learned District Judge held that the leases created permanent tenures in derogation of the rights of succeeding ghatwals and were invalid against them. Referring to the nature of the holding he says: "It has been argued, and also asserted in page 2 of the plaint, that the lease shows that it was a jungleburi tenure, the grant being made for reclaiming purposes. The grant is for 300 bighas of land and the lease enjoins that the holder should clear jungles, settle raiyats on it, and also cultivate; the evidence is that some Santhals have been settled on a portion of the land, some jungles have been cleared by cutting woods, and one of the plaintiffs admits that the khas cultivation is almost nil. Such a tenure can hardly be considered as a cultivating lease or raiyati tenure; . . . . and having regard to Section 5 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, I have no doubt that the leases in this case created tenures and not raiyati holdings. The plaintiffs could not therefore acquire any right of occupancy in the jungle in dispute" The District Judge accordingly dismissed the suit.