NIRANJAN CHAKRAVARTI Vs. MUKUNDA MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs sued for a declaration that defendants 1 to 3 are mela-bhag tenants of the lands specified in Schedules 4 and 5 and that defendants 4 and 5 are mela-bhag tenants of lands described in Schedule 3. In the Record of Rights published in 1922 defendants 1 to 3 have been recorded as occupancy-raiyats in respect of Schedule 4 lands on a nakdi jama of Rs. 3 per annum. They have also been recorded as occupancy-raiyats in respect of the lands described in Schedule 5, while defendants 4 and 5 have been recorded as occupancy-raiyats in respect of the lands described in Schedule 3. The first Court found in favour of the plaintiffs, with respect to the lands described in Schedules 3 and 5. Defendants 1 to 3 appealed with respect to the Schedule 5 lands and the plaintiffs appealed with respect to the Schedule 4 lands. The appeal of defendants 1 to 3 was allowed, while the appeal of the plaintiffs was dismissed.

(2.) Second Appeal No. 783 of 1931 is directed against the decision with respect to Schedule 5 lands, and Second Appeal No. 784 of 1931 arises out of the decision relating to the Schedule 4 lands. The contention of the learned advocate for the appellants is that the Court below has misconceived the legal position. The plaintiffs case is that their father purchased the disputed lands from one Dhananjoy who had purchased them from Mt. Alhadini, the former tenant of the lands. The plaintiffs title is based on a registered patta of 1906.

(3.) They further alleged that on 7 March 1907, the defendants executed in their favour an agreement with respect to the disputed lands for five years. The tenor of this agreement was that the defendants were to cultivate the lands and give the plaintiffs half the produce. The first question to be considered is the effect of this agreement. In the Manbhum District Gazetteer, from which district this case comes, it is said at p. 146 that: Produce rents are not very common except in the case of small areas let out to the poorer class of cultivating labourers; not infrequently also the real tenant holds under his mortgagee on bhag, when he has got so involved as to be obliged to convert his simple mortgage into a usufructuary mortgage. Ordinarily, in the case of such bhag settlements, the produce is divided half and half, but where the landlord provides seed and cattle for ploughing, the tenant receives one-third only. In these cases the tenant is really a mere servant known as krishan ardhiar or aidhar and his third share of the crop represents his wages for cultivating his master's land.