SARJU MAHTO Vs. KRISHNA PRASAD NARAYAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the respondent landlord for the realization of rent for the years 1330 to 1333 Fasli with a prayer for enhancement of rent under Section 30(b), Ben. Ten. Act. In effect there was also a prayer for assessing rent on an excess area found in possession of the defendant over the area for which the rent was fixed in 1908 under a kabuliyat of that year. Prior to the year 1908, the appellant's holdings were of 24 bighas 10 kathas of bhowli lands and 2 bighas 14 kathas 10 dhurs of nakdi land, with a rental of Rs. 13-3-0, the total area in possession of the defendant being 27 bighas 4 kathas 10 dhurs. It appears that the defendant along with other tenants of the village made an attempt to have the rents of bhowli lands commuted into nakdi.

(2.) This was refused by the Revenue Authorities. Later on some settlement was arrived at between the parties and the rent of the bhowli lands of the defendant was commuted by a mutual agreement at a uniform rate of Rs. 7 per bigha, the rent coming to Rs. 171-8-0. Adding to it the nakdi rent already mentioned the total rent come to Rs. 184-11-0. A kabuliyat embodying these terms was executed by the defendants. There are two stipulations in the kabuliyat which require special mention. The first is to the effect that if any excess area be found in possession of the defendant rent at the stipulated rate would be paid by him, and the second is that the rent, namely Rs. 7 per bigha was fixed on the consideration of the fact that the defendant was a jeth raiyat, the usual rent being Rs. 7-14-0 per bigha.

(3.) The plaintiff claimed rent at the rate of Rs. 7-14-0 per bigha for the bhowli area on the allegation that he was entitled to that rate on account of the defendant having ceased to be a jeth raiyat and also claimed rent for the excess area of 8 kathas 10 dhurs found by the survey of 1910. Then, as I have said, there was a prayer for enhancement of rent. The trial Court passed a modified decree. It disallowed rent for the excess area and held that the plaintiff was entitled to rent only at Rs. 7 per bigha.