RAJENDRA NARAYANA SINGH DEO Vs. BIHARI LAL CHAKRAVARTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal relates to Balipur a mauza in the Panohet Estate in the district of Manbhum. According to the plaint the plaintiff and their co-sharers like their predecessors-in-title had been in possession of a part of the mauza in talabi or kheraji brahmatter right on a uniform rate of rent from long before the Decennial Settlement, the kheraji or talabi rental for the mauza being shown as Rs. 6-12-0 in the Sarsikan paper of 1197 (Bengali Era) and the plaintiffs enjoying a demarcated 4 anna share of the mauza on a proportionate rent. In the proceeding leading to the Record of Rights which was finally published in November 1923 the plaintiffs were at first recorded as holders of a four anna share in the kheraji brahmatter but on an objection under Section 83, Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, by the principal defendants 1 to 4 the immediate landlords of the plaintiff the status was altered from kheraji brahmatter to jamai satwa and the rent which the plaintiffs had been uniformly paying for a long time was shown as liable to enhancement.

(2.) The plaint therefore prays for declaration that a four anna share of the mauza belongs to the plaintiffs in kheraji brahmatter right that the rent payable by them is fixed at Re. 1-12-13-3(couries) and is not liable to enhancement and that the entries to the contrary in the Record of Eights are erroneous. The suit was contested by the defendants 1 to 4 who claimed that the mauza was in their khas possession as patnidars and that the plaintiffs and others held merely as ordinary raiyats.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge who tried the suit came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had a kheraji brahmatter right in the mauza that the rent paid by them for this right is fixed and not liable to alteration and the Record of Eights to the contrary is incorrect but he was not satisfied that it was four anna share in the mauza that was held by the plaintiffs. He accordingly decreed the suit in part. Defendants 1 to 4 appealed to the District Judge and there was a cross appeal by the plaintiffs in so far as their claim to a declaration that they held a four anna share in the mauza had been dismissed by the trial Court. The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal and allowed the cross-appeal. Hence this second appeal by defendants 1 to 4.