RAJA P C LAL CHAUDHURY Vs. GULZAR ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of three rent suits brought on 5 November 1927, by the proprietors of mahal Lat Mirzapur which includes mauza Pachaiwari Jhirua to recover the rent for the 12-annas kist of the year 1333, for the whole of 1334 and the first 8-annas kist of 1335. The tenants (defendants first party) set up various defences that, with which we are concerned being that the rent was payable by them as raiyats not to the landlord plaintiff but to a darpatnidar under a patnidar (Babu Maharaj Bahadur) who in turn held his patni tenure under the landlord by virtue of a patta of the year 1854 which gave no authority to the patnidar to create darpatni interests of the kind under consideration.

(2.) The patnidar was made defendant second party. It appears that in the year 1924 the plaintiff had sued the patnidar for arrears of his rent and in execution had put to sale and purchased the tenure in 1925. The sale was confirmed on 22 April, 1926, and after an unsuccessful appeal to the High Court, the landlord got delivery of possession on 7 May 1927. The patnidar, Maharaj Bahadur, had before the sale executed a darpatni to an intermediate tenure holder and on 5th July 1927, after he had ceased to be a patni. dar he purchased from the darpatnidar the darpatni interest and thus purported to have re-inserted himself between the landlord and the raiyat tenants.

(3.) The landlord on 28 June 1926, after the decision in his favour against the patnidar, had applied under Section 167, Ben. Ten. Act, to annul the tenures between himself and the raiyat-tenants, but the raiyats in the present suit contended and the Court below has held that the proceedings for annulment were void on the ground that they were not taken in time. The landlord however falls back on Section 11, Patni Regulation (8 of 1819), and contends that the darpatni interest was cancelled when he took the unequivocal step of applying for cancellation on 28 June 1926. At that time Maharaj Bahadur had no interest whatever for he had lost his patni tenure by sale in 1925 and he did not purport to acquire the darpatni interest which he had created while patnidar until his purchase from the darpatnidar on 5 July 1927 so that he was not a necessary party and required no notice of intention to cancel.