K C MUKERJEE Vs. AINADDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these applications in revision the petitioner, the Official Receiver, prays that the decrees passed by the Special Judge of Tipperah, dated 23 August 1921, in two settlement appeals be amended in the way suggested. The petitioner made several applications before the settlement officer under Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act, for settlement of fair and equitable rent, but we are concerned with only two of those cases. As the decision in one case will govern the other I will deal with Settlement Case No. 2237 of 1919 in which 110 khatians wore involved. The defence of the tenants was that their holdings were mukarrari and that the rents were not liable to be enhanced, either under Section 52 of the Act, on account of increase in area, or under Section 30-B for increase in the price of the staple food-crops. The assistant settlement officer allowed enhancement of rent in some cases under Section 52 which was not challenged in the appeals and we are not concerned with it at present. As regards enhancement under Section 30-B the assistant settlement officer found that out of 110 khatians in suit rents of 86 khatians were liable to be enhanced and the remaining 24 were mukarrari. He further held that the plaintiff was entitled to enhancement under Section 30-B at the rate of two annas four pies in the rupee. The plaintiff appealed and the learned Special Judge on appeal held that the rent should be enhanced under Section 30-B at the rate of four annas eight pies in the rupee. As regards the other holdings he held that seven out of the 24 khatians held by the assistant settlement officer to be mukarrari, were nonmukarrari of which rent was liable to enhancement at the above rate; and as regards the remaining 17 khatians, he agreed with the assistant settlement officer that they were mukarrari and their rent could not be enhanced. The decree that was drawn up following this judgment is in these words: It is ordered that this appeal is allowed in part. Enhancement allowed at the rate of four annas eight pies instead of two annas four pies per rupee with respect to the holdings in Khatians Nos. 14, 41, 132, 187, 55, 75 and 38, which are held not to be mukarrari.

(2.) This decree is supposed to have been drawn up in accordance with the ordering portion of the judgment which was in these words: The result is as follows: On those holdings held to be liable to enhancement of rent, the appellant will get enhancement at the rate of four annas eight pies instead of two annas four pies. Appeals are allowed to this extent and also as to the following khatians which are not held to be mukarrari: Appeal No. 124, Khatians Nos. 14, 41, 132, 187, 55, 75 and 38.

(3.) What the learned Judge meant to find was that the plaintiff was entitled to claim enhancement at the rate of four annas eight pies in the rupee in respect of the khatians which were held to be nonmukarrari by the assistant settlement officer and also with respect to the seven of the 24 khatians in Appeal No. 124 which were held to be mukarrari by that officer. There is no question therefore that the decree is not in accordance with the judgment.