SATYANIRANJAN CHAKRAVARTY Vs. HABIBAR SOBHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in the suits out of which these appeals have arisen sued the defendants, as Trustees to the Estate of Sam Ranjan Chakravarty, for realization of arrears of rent due in respect of fourteen different jamas or tenancies, for the period from Kartie to Falgun of the year 1334 B.E. The claim as made in the fourteen suits was resisted by the tenant-defendant, who had acquired interest in the tenancies in the year 1325 B.E. (1918), by purchase from the previous tenants the Chongdars, who in their turn derived their interest from the Roys of Duarka, in whose favour the tenancies were created in the year 1289 B.E. (1882), by Maharaja Ram Ranjan Chakravarty, the predecessors-in-title of the plaintiffs, who are trustees in possession by virtue of a deed of settlement (or trust) executed by the said Maharaja in the year 1284 B.E. (1887). The right of the plaintiffs to realize rent at the rates mentioned in the kabuliyats creating the tenancies in 1882, was denied by the defendant, who asserted that in the year 1313 B.E. (1906), the Maharaja granted a reduction of the rates of rent payable in respect of the tenancies to the then holder, Giris Chandra Chongdar, by a document. The defendants asserted that there was a long continued payment of rent at the reduced rates, on the strength of the document of 1906, from 1316.to 1332 B.E. It was further asserted by the defendants that there was an oral agreement with the plaintiffs, the present trustees, in the year 1327 B.E. (1920), on payment of selami Ac, giving effect to the reduction, granted in the year 1906. The tenant defendant wholly repudiated the position that renb at the rates originally settled in respect of the tenancies in 1882, was recoverable from him by the plaintiffs.

(2.) On the pleadings of the parties various points were raised for determination in the suits. For the purpose of appeals to this Court, mention may be made of the main questions. The question was mooted as to whether Maharaja Ram Ranjan Chakravarty was competent to allow reduction of rent to the then tenant. The effect of payment of rent at reduced rates for a long period before the institution of the suits was to be considered; and the further question was raised on the pleadings and upon the materials placed before the Court, as to the position created by the plaintiffs by acceptance of rent at reduced rates, after the alleged agreement to reduce the rates of rent on the part of the landlords in the year 1920: whether the contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant as alleged by the defendant was performed in part, so as to create an equitable estoppel against the plaintiffs precluding them from claiming rent at the rate mentioned in original settlement of the year 1882.

(3.) The Court of first instance came to the conclusion that the reduction in the rates granted by the trustee in 1906, could not be held to bo binding on the plaintiffs, the present trustees: it was held on a construction of the deed of trust (or settlement), that a trustee could have no power to grant reduction of rent. It was further held that the document evidencing the reduction of rent in the year 1906, Ex. A-7 in the case, was without consideration and was "not to the advantage of the trust property." With reference to the agreements to reduce the rates of rent by the plaintiffs themselves in the year, 1920, the trial Court came to the decision that it could not stand as bar to the plaintiffs realizing the kabuliyat rentals," As to the payment at reduced rate of rent, the trial Court came to the conclusion that in the year 1325, as also in 1333, there were payments at the original rates, thus demolishing the case of uniform payment at reduced rates. In the above view of the case decrees were passed in favour of the plaintiffs, allowing their claims in the suits in full, negativing the defence raised by the tenant-defendant. On appeal by the defendant the learned Subordinate Judge of Birbhoom has reversed the decision of the trial Court, on all material points arising for consideration in the cases.