GOPI SUNDARI DASI Vs. KHEROD GOBINDA CHOWDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the appellate judgment of the Additional District Judge of Pabna, dated the 31 May, 1921. The questions which the learned Additional Judge had to consider are thus stated by him: (1) Was Mouza Chur Raninagar included within the putni held by the plaintiffs and other pro forma defendants under the malik defendants? Was Mehal No. 2159 created out of the lands of that putni? (2) Are the plaintiffs entitled to a refund of the amount claimed?

(2.) Some short explanation is necessary to the nature of the dispute in connection with which these questions arose.

(3.) The plaintiffs and those defendants in the suit who are described as pro forma defendants are the proprietors of a putni tenure within the estate of the principal defendants Nos. 1 to 7. The tenure is bounded on one side by the river Ganges and in the year 1912-1913, a survey was made by the Government with the result that certain lands were formed into a separate estate No. 2159 known as Mouza Chur Raninagar, on the footing that the lands wore an accretion to the parent estate, Raninagar, the estate that is of the Principal defendants. On that footing a settlement was made under which the putnidars were to pay rent for these lands at the rate of Rs. 189 a year in addition to the rent payable for the original putni. It is stated in the judgments of the Courts below that in the settlement the Government was recorded as tahsildars of the proprietors of the estate. No suggestion appears to have been made that the putnidars were party to or bound by the proceedings. In the result, however, they were compelled to pay this additional rent for four years and they then brought the present suit to retrieve the amount so paid. Their case is that the original putni, the putni as originally created, for which rent was payable under their engagement with the proprietors, included the lands of the new estate No. 2159 and they contend accordingly that in respect of this area rent has been recovered from them twice over. They succeeded in the Courtis below and three of the principal defendants (Nos. 1 to 3) has preferred this appeal.