CHAGGANLAL MARWARI Vs. INDRA KEOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals, which have been heard together, arise out of appellate decrees of the District Judge of Man-bhum, dismissing suits in which it was sought to evict the defendants from certain land which was originally settled with their grandfather, one Bisu Keot some sixty years or so ago. Bisu Keot constructed a house on this land, and subsequently, his two sons Debakar Keot and Rakhal Keot seem to have partitioned the house between them. For hat reason, apparently, two suits were instituted, one against the son af Debakar Keot and the other against the sons of Rakhal Keot. The proprietor of the land in suit was Rai Bahadur R.C. Sinha, who it is said, was at one time the Government Pleader at Purulia. In 1924 the Rai Bahadur sold this and other land to the plaintiffs.

(2.) The question that arises in each of the appeals is whether or not the Courts below were correct in drawing from the circumstances, which were proved, the inference that the tenancy of Bisu Keot was a permanent tenancy and his grandsons were not liable to be evicted. In one of the suits reliance was placed on the circumstance that Debakar Keot had mortgaged his interest in the property and that in due course this mortgage had been sued upon and a decree obtained. This was in 1905. The mortgaged property was sold in execution of the decree, and, in 1911, was reconveyed by the decree-holder who had purchased it himself, to Rajani Keotani, the wife of Debakar Keot. Later, in 1913, Debakar Keot mortgaged his interest in the property again, and in 1924, the mortgagee assigned his right under the mortgage to a third person. There is a recital in one of these mortgage deeds that the rent payable for the land in suit was fixed permanently.

(3.) Clearly, however, this was not, strictly speaking, admissible in evidence at all, and, if it had been, could not have been of any weight as against the landlord. The learned District Judge observed that there was no reason to suppose that the litigation which ended in the mortgage decree passed in 1905 was collusive. That may very well be so. It may be that Debakar Keot, and the persons who advanced money to him on the security of his interest in the property, believed that he and his brother Rakhal Keot had permanent rights in it. In order, however, to create an inference that the landlord had made a permanent settlement of the land, it was incumbent on the defendants to show, not merely that the sons of Bisu Keot and persons who were ready to lend money to them had proceeded on the assumption that Bisu Keot had permanent rights in the land, but that the landlord, had been aware of and acquiesced in these transactions. No evidence was, however forthcoming to show that the landlord had recognised the mortgagee as his tenant after the mortgagee had purchased an interest in the property in execution of his mortgage decree.