ANANTPAL RAM PANDE Vs. KUMAR KAMAKHYA NARAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, the proprietor of the Ramgarh Raj, instituted the present suit for recovery of certain land alleging that the defendants were tenure-holders liable to ejectment on notice and that notice to vacate the land had been given to the defendants. The defence was that the defendants were occupancy-raiyats and that the village was settled with their ancestors for reclamation. The first Court held that the defendants were tenure-holders liable to ejectment on notice and decreed the plaintiff's suit. That decision has been confirmed in appeal by the defendants. The defendants have preferred this second appeal. There is no evidence as to the origin of the defendants tenancy, but in khewat No. 2 in Col. 4, headed "character of interest" are the words "thica bemiadi."

(2.) The next column states that the land was "not resumable" and it is also stated that the rent was liable to be enhanced as and when more land was reclaimed. The contention of the learned advocate for the appellants is that these entries, properly construed, mean that the defendants are occupancy-raiyats. It is argued in the first place that the word "thica" denotes a raiyat, but that even if there be any ambiguity about this, the fact that the land is said to be non-resumable and that the rent was liable to progressive enhancement as it was brought under cultivation shows that the defendants interest was permanent.

(3.) The learned District Judge found that there was no satisfactory evidence to show that the defendants held either under a reclamation or cultivating lease or that the defendants had in fact reclaimed or cultivated any land in the village, but that on the contrary all the land comprised within the tenure was in the cultivating possession of one Manbodh Mahto and had been in the cultivating possession of Manbodh Mahto's family for many years. In the case of Bulaki Mian V/s. Tikaitni Kosilya Kuari First Appeal No. 183 of 1919 which was referred to in Krishna Prasad Singh V/s. Budhan Manjhi AIR 1928 Pat 451 it was held that if no portion of the tenure has been reclaimed by the tenant, this is a ground for holding that the tenancy is not permanent.