SURAPATI ROY Vs. RAM NARAYAN MUKERJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE consolidated appeals arise out of two suits brought by the plaintiff, a patnidar under the Burdwan estate, to recover rent from the defendants in respect of three darpatni taluks they held under him. The Burdwan Raj contains a large number of patni tenures, and subinfeudation is recognized and largely given effect to in that estate. Not only are patnidars entitled to grant sub-tenures called darpatnis, but the darpatnidar on his side can grant subordinate tenures under himself which bear the designation of sepatni. The plaintiff's case is that the fifteen defendants whom he sued for the darpatni rent of the three darpatni taluks were all jointly interested in the under-tenures. The defendants, other than defendants 3, 14 and 15, contended that although originally they held a share in the darpatni tenure, they had, on August 25, 1906, conveyed their 12 annas interest to one Ramtarak Bhuttacharji as the benamidar of the defendants 3, 14 and 15, and that two years later--namely, in June, 1908, Ramtarak had, by a registered document, renounced all interest in the darpatni in favour of the defendants 3, 14 and 15, acknowledging that they were the real purchasers and that he was only their furzidar. The defendants, other than 3, 14 and 15, accordingly urged that they were not liable for the rent of the under-tenure and were wrongly sued.

(2.) IT appears that after the execution of the deed of sale in 1906, the plaintiff had instituted against these several defendants, including defendants 3,14 and 15, suits for rent in which the defendants other than defendants 3, 14 and 15 denied their liability on the ground that they had parted with their interest in favour of their co-defendants 3, 14 and 15, and that in those suits the Court before whom the question came for trial had held that the contending defendants had failed to establish that the transaction was bona fide and not a mere sham; and had declared that, notwithstanding the transaction of 1906, the plaintiff was entitled to rent from all the defendants, and had decreed his claim accordingly. There were further suits between the parties; the same contentions were raised by the defendants other than defendants 3, 14 and 15; but the defence was disallowed on the ground that the question relating to their liability was res judicata. The defendants other than the defendants 3, 14 and 15, thereupon, on July 6, 1914, executed a fresh document in favour of their co-defendants 3, 14 and 15, by which they purported to confirm the transaction of 1906 and release in the latter's favour whatever right and title they possessed in their 12 annas share of the darpatni.

(3.) FROM this part of the Munsif's decree, the plaintiff appealed to the Subordinate Judge of Hooghly, who, on February 28, 1917, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decree of the Munsif.