BHUPENDRA KUMAR CHAKRABURTY Vs. SURAJ KANTA RAI CHOWDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for ejectment for assessment of rent and premium, for recovery of arrears, and for incidentall reliefs.

(2.) On the 22nd June, 1899, the plaintiff granted a kayami maurasi mokarari pattah in respect of Chakdari jungle lands in the Sunderbuns to one Syamacharan Das. On the 12th January 1902, the representatives; of the lessee conveyed their interest to the defendant. The case for the plaintiff is that, whereas under the lease, the defendant is entitled to 2500 bighas of land, he has managed to obtain possession of 2729 bighas 5 cottahs and 11 chattaks. The plaintiff, consequently, seeks to recover possession of 229 bighas 5 cottahs and 11 chattaks. The plaintiff, claims, in the alternative, that rent and premium maybe settled on all land in excess of 2000 bighas, which was the original quantity mentioned in the lease and formed the basis of calculation of the sum payable by the lessee. The plaintiff further prays for recovery of arrears. The Subordinate Judge has dismissed the claim for ejectment. He has held that the plaintiff is entitled to rent and premium on 500 bighas in excess of 2000 bighas at the rates mentioned in the lease, namely, at Re. 1 per bigha. He has further held that the plaintiff is entitled to have-rent assessed at Re. 1-8 a bigha and premium at Rs. 5 a bigha on all lands in excess of 250O bighas. He has finally decreed arrears at the rates mentioned from 1322 B.S. to 1324 B.S. The decree has satisfied neither party. The defendant has appealed on three grounds, namely, first, that in the determination of the excess area assessable, allowance should have been made for a tow path : secondly, that rent and premium should have been assessed throughout at the rates mentioned in the lease and thirdly, that arrears should not have been decreed for any period antecedent to the institution of the suit. The plaintiff has preferred cross-objections and attacked the decree on two grounds, namely, first, that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for ejectment with regard to all lands in excess of 2,500 bighas; and, secondly, that rent and premium should have been assessed at higher rates than those fixed by the Subordinate Judge.

(3.) he three questions which thus emerge for consideration, are, first, is the plaintiff entitled to a decree for ejectment in respect of all lands in excess of 2,500 bighas; secondly, at what rate should rent and premium be assessed and in respect of what excess lands; thirdly, is the plaintiff entitled to a decree for arrears antecedent to the suit.