SRIMATI JOHARA BANOO Vs. GANGA CHANDRA CHOWDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals Nos. 178, 390 and 397 arise out of two connected suits. Appeal No. 178 arises out of Suit No. 2548 of 1916 and Appeals Nos. 390 and 397 arise out of Suit No. 2547 of 1916. The two connected suits were brought to recover possession of a tenure which had been purchased by an auction-purchaser at a rent sale and he claimed to have annulled some incumbrences subsisting in the land, namely a howla and a raiyati interest The First Court dismissed both the suits, but the Second Court decreed the suits. In Appeal $0. 178, there are two sets of appellants, namely, defendant No. 6, the howladar and defendants Nos. 15, 16 and 17 whom I may describe as the holders of a raiyati at a fixed rate subject to that contention urged on their behalf that they do not in fact hold at a fixed rate. Appeal No. 390 is preferred by defendant No. 9, a raiyat and Appeal No. 397 is preferred by the howldar.

(2.) Four or rather five questions have been urged before us in these appeals. First, it is said that so far as the raiyat are concerned, they hold at fixed rents and have a right of occupancy and they are not encumbrancers, but have protected interests. Secondly it is said that if they are wrong on this first point they are act to be deemed raiyats holding at fixed rates of rents having regard to the terms upon which they hold. It is said that their rents being liable to be increased they cannot be said to be raiyats holding at fixed rate of rents. These two questions, of course, concern only the raiyats and not the howladars;

(3.) The third question which is raised, affects both the howladars and the raiyats and the contention there under was that the decree in respect of which the purchase was made was not a rent-decree because of certain irregularities which I shall presently mention.