SHYAMA CHARAN DAS Vs. JOGESH CHANDRA ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of a suit for rent. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the lands of Schedule 1 appertained exclusively to hisyas Nos. 3, 11 and 6 in a revenue paying estate called Taraf Sambhuram, that hisyas Nos. 3 and 11 belonged to one Raj Kumar Roy, whose rights in hisya No. 3 were purchased at a revenue sale by the defendant No. 23 who again sold the same to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, as purchaser of Raj Kumar Roy s hisya No. 3, sued to recover his share of the rent against the defendant No. 1 making the other co-proprietors of the estate parties to the suit. In the alternative, he prayed that a decree for the entire rent might be passed on taking additional Court-fee from him. There was a further alternative claim for a certain share of the rent of the lands of Schedules 2, 3 and 4 which it is unnecesary to consider in these appeals.

(2.) The defence, inter alia, was that the lands do not belong to hisyas Nos. 3, 11 or 6 but belong to a difference hisya (No. 2) owned by defendants Nos. 3--8.

(3.) The Court of first instance held that the lands did not appertain to hisya No. 3 and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 with respect to any land mentioned in the plaint and dismissed the suit. 3. On appeal, the lower Appellate Court held that the lands of Schedule 1 were held under the proprietors of Taraf Simbhuram and that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1, but gave a decree to the plaintiff for a share of the rent proportionate to his share in the entire estate. The defendant No. 1 has appealed to this Court in Second Appeal No. 2098 and the plaintiff has appealed in No. 2625.