PROBODH CHANDRA MITTER Vs. HARISH CHANDRA NASKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal was heard once before see the judgment in Probodh Chunder V/s. Hurish Chunder A.I.R. 1921 Cal. 145, but as the judgment proceeded partly upon a concession made by the pleader for the appellant, the judgment was set aside on review, and the appeal has been heard again.

(2.) The appeal arises oat of a suit for rent under the following circumstances : One Purna was the proprietor of an estate in the Sunderbuns. He sold an 8 annas share of the estate to one Chandranath on the 9 August, 1897. The latter got his name registered in respect of the 8 annas share under the Land Registration Act." About six years afterwards on 12 May, 1903, the defendant No. 1 took a lease of 400 bighas of land from Purna alone and executed a registered kabuliyat in his favour agreeing to pay a fixed rent of Rs. 350. He appears to have paid rent for some years to Purna alone. Purna died leaving two sons, and the plaintiff is the ijardar of an 8 annas share of the estate from the sons of Purna whose names were registered in respect of the 8 anaas share. The plaintiff brought a suit against the defendant for the rent reserved in the lease. The defendant pleaded that he had paid an 8 annas share of the rent to the representative of Chandranath who was registered as proprietor of an 8 annas share of the estate under the Land ERegistration Act and that, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to rent in respect of the 16 annas share. The Courts below have given effect to this contention and the plaintiff has appealed to this Court.

(3.) Now the name of Purna was registered under the Land Registration Act in respect of 8 annas share: and, that although the name of Chandranath was registered in respect of the other 8 annas share, hp had nothing to do with the lease which was granted by Purna alone and without reference to his co-sharer Chandranath. It appears that the land was riot cultivated at the time when it was let out as it was to be held rent-free for the first, few years. The position, therefore, was this one of the co-sharers alone let out a portion of the land of the estate in order to make a profitable use of it by bringing." it under cultivation through his tenant. Whether Chandranath had similarly let out other lands or not, and what the arrangement was between the co-sharers" we do not know. But this much is certain that Chandranath had nothing to do with this lease of 400 bighas.