RAMSEWAK KURMI Vs. SRI THAKURJI MAHARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for arrears of rent for the years 1343-46 in respect of Khata No. 281 I in village Hetampur, Touzi No. 962 at an annual jama of Rs. 50-14-9 plus cess. The plaintiff is not the registered proprietor and the defendants pleaded that the suit was barred by Section 60, Bihar Tenancy Act, and Section 78, Land Registration Act. The defendants further pleaded payment of rent to the registered proprietors in proof of which they tendered three receipts which have been accepted by the trial Court as genuine. The Munsif raised three points for determination: (1) Is there any relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiff and defendants? (2) Is the present suit barred in view of the fact that the name of the plaintiff is not recorded in Register D? (3) Is the payment alleged by the defendant valid and sufficient and binding on the plaintiff?

(2.) The contention that the suit was barred because the plaintiff was not a registered proprietor was answered by the plaintiff by saying that the document under which the plaintiff became entitled to the rents is not a transfer of proprietary interest in the village but is an assignment of the rents of three holdings including that in suit. The Courts, have concurrently found that the document in question which is the deed of endowment in favour of an idol has the character which the-plaintiff says that it has. The plaintiff on this view is not a proprietor and is not suing as a proprietor and, therefore, neither Section 78, Land Registration Act, nor Section 60, Bihar Tenancy Act, will be operative to bar the suit. Coming then to the question whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendants, the Courts have answered this issue in the affirmative without considering that if the deed of endowment has the character which the plaintiff says, and which the Courts have said that it bears, it does not operate to constitute the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the raiyats of the holding. It has been settled long ago that the assignee of the rents of a holding does not by the assignment become the landlord in relation to the tenant of the holding. He is an assignee of the rents and nothing more. The Courts have relied on Ex. 4, an extract of the rent suit register showing that the present plaintiff obtained a decree against the present defendants for the rents of 1341 and 1342 and relies on that as establishing conclusively that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties; but the plaintiff has not exhibited the plaint or the written statement, or the issues or the judgment or the decree of that suit and it is impossible to say what was therein decided. We cannot even say whether the present plaintiff instituted that suit in the capacity of a landlord or of an assignee of rents. At any rate on the findings of the Courts below the question--Is there any relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiff and defendants--must be aswered in the negative and nothing in Ex. 4 can affect this result.

(3.) I have now to consider the third point, namely whether the payment alleged by defendants is a valid discharge under Section 60, Bihar Tenancy Act. It has already been made clear that the defendants holding is-held under the proprietor. The fact that the rents have been assigned will not operate to create a new tenancy the raiyats not being a, party to the transaction and in the absence of any devolution of the proprietary interest. The section enacts clearly enough that the receipt of the registered proprietor shall be a sufficient discharge for the rent as between the tenant and the person claiming to recover it. At the same time the section expressly preserves the right of the plaintiff as against the registered proprietor who has or is alleged to have wrongfully received the rents. I can find no answer to Section 60 in this case and I must point out further that Ex. 4 is of no avail to the plaintiff in this context because there is no proof that in the former rent suit payment to the registered proprietor was pleaded. In the result the appeal must be allowed and the suit dismissed with costs of all Courts. Leave to appeal under the Letters Patent is refused.