AHAMMAD MOHAMMAD PARUK Vs. RAHIMANNESSA KHATUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are on behalf of defendant 2 and arise out of two rent suits. One Golam Ali Choudhury died in 1888 leaving three widows of whom respondent in Appeal No. 1717, Jamidannessa is one, three sons and six daughters of whom respondent in Appeal No. 1716 Rahimannessa is one. Jamidannessa inherited 13 gandas and odd share in Golam Ali Choudhury's estate and Rahimannessa 17 gandas and odd share. In 1891 these two ladies by different registered leases let out their respective shares in the 397 items of property left by Golam Ali Choudhuri to his two sons Tozammal Ali alias Kuti Mia and Ali Ahammad, reserving an yearly rent of Rs, 1,200-8-0 in favour of each of the lessors. The present suits are brought by the plaintiffs, the lessors, for rent against the heirs and assignees of Tozammal Ali and Ali Ahammad for the years 1327 and 1328 on the basis of the registered leases. It appears that in 1329 there was a partition by the civil Court among the heirs of Golam Ali Choudhuri and the assignees from them including the present appellant under which the shares of the lessors were transferred to 70 out of the 397 items of properties. Of the 397 items of properties left by Golam Ali Choudhuri 109 were revenue-paying estates and the remaining 288 were tenures.

(2.) An objection was taken on behalf of the defendant-appellant in both the suits that they were not maintainable in view of Section 16, Ben. Ten. Act, inasmuch as the names of the lessors were not registered under Section 15 of that Act. The learned Subordinate Judge in the trial Court gave effect to the plea in bar and dismissed the plaintiffs suit in respect of the tenures on the ground that the plaintiffs had not got their names registered with the Collector and decreed the plaintiff's claim in respect of the revenue-paying estates after deducting the amount which the plaintiffs admitted to have received from the defendants. In the suit in which Rahimannossa was the plaintiff a further objection was taken that a portion of the claim was barred as it was contended by the defendant that the suit was for 1325 and 1326 and as also for 1327 and 1328, and the claim for rent for the years 1325 and 1326 was barred.

(3.) On appeal the learned District Judge differed from the Subordinate Judge on both points and decreed the plaintiff's suit with some modification.