KRISHNENDRA NATHSARKAR Vs. RANI KUSUM KAMANI DEBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for enhancement of rent of a jote and also for additional rent for increase in area. The defence was that the tenure was a mourasi mokarrari one, that the rent was not liable to enhancement; and that there was no increase in area. The claim for additional rent for additional area was dropped in the lower Appellate Court. The Court of first instance, held that the rent was not liable to enhancement. The Court of Appeal below held that it was, and gave a decree for enhancement of rent. The defendants have appealed to this Court.

(2.) It appears that the plaintiff's father-in law granted a jote. potta in favour of one Biswanath Sarkar, the defendant's predecessor, on the 22nd Poush 1276 B.S. in respect of an entire mourn (Malda,); and two jotes situated in two other villages, one of which stood in the name of Biswanath's father and the other in the name of his uncle. The rent settled for the entire tenancy was Rs. 418-9-5. The material portion of the potta runs as follows: You will enjoy from generation to, generation keeping intact the boundaries as before, The profit and, loss are yours, You will on no account be entitled to claim a reduction of rent. When required by me you will submit to, jariy jamabandi If any new imposition, be made by the Government, you will pay it, besides; the jama, of this potta.

(3.) The expression "jote" in the potta, does not mean that the tenancy is a raiyati holding. The expression jote" is a general term and does not necessarily mean a raiyati jote (see Midnapur gemndari Com pany V/s. Naresh Narayan, Roy, 64 Ind. Cas. 231 : 48 I.A. 49 At P. 54 : 48 C. 460 : 14 L.W. 265 : 30 M.L.T. 279 : (1922) A.I.R. (P.C.) 241 (P.C.), The petto. comprised an entire mouza, and the respondent, does not dispute- that it is a tenure. In tact the claim for enhancement has been treated in the Courts, below as being one under Section 7 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.