RABINDRA CHANDRA GHOSE Vs. ON DEATH OF SURENDRA CHANDRA GHOSE HIS SONS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES ARUN KUMAR GHOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are by the plaintiffs in two suits for the recovery of arrears of rent of a tenure for two different periods. F.A. NO. 84 of 1941 arises out of the Rent Suit No. 4 of 1939 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, 24 Parganas for the arrears of the last three Kists of 1342 B.S. by the four sons of the late Sir Charu Chandra Ghosh. F.A. No. 85 of 1941 arises out of the Rent Suit No. 5 of 1939 of the same Court for the arrears of the years 1343, 1344 and 1345 B.S. by the eldest son only as in the meantime by a partition amongst the brothers he alone became the proprietor of the relevant estates. The tenure in question is in respect of the lands of the two Estates bearing Touzi Nos. 1490 and 1491 of the 24 parganas Collectorate. These are temporarily settled estates in the Sunderbans. It appears that these estates were at first settled in perpetuity in 1834 by the Potta NO. 74 of 1 September 1834, corresponding to 17 Bhadra 1241 B.S. Sunderban Grant Rules were revised in 1853. Hitherto increase of revenue had been the paramount object. That principle was now abandoned and speedy reclamation was declared to be the paramount object. Keeping that object in view, the Governor accepted the terms offered by the grantees with two modifications: (1) that conditions of progressive clearance should be insisted on and (2) that the full assessment of 2 annas instead of being in perpetuity should be for 99 years, after which grants should be liable to re-assessment on moderate terms, proprietorship and the right of settlement remaining with the grantees as in estates not permanently settled. It was also decided that the existing grantees would be allowed the option of throwing up their leases and taking fresh leases for 99 years under the new rules, lands already brought under assessment being subjected to the full rate of 2 annas.

(2.) It appears from Exs. K and K (1) that in 1857 the grantee of the settlement in respect of these estates exercised the option of throwing up the perpetual lease and of taking a fresh lease for 99 years under the Grant Rules of 1853. This period of 99 years was computed from the commencement of the earlier settlement and was thus to end in April 1933. The grantee of this fresh settlement for 99 years was one Nazimuddin Sarkar. By the year 1870 the estate came to be owned by one Mohunt Joyram Gir of Mirzapur. In 1877 the said Joyram Gir granted to one Prankissen Sen a kaemi mourashi tenure of the lands of these estates. The potta granted by Joyram Gir was in English and was executed by him on 13 June 1877. A certified copy of this potta is Ex. N (2) in this case. The kabuliyat by Prankissen was in Urdu and was executed by him on 2 October, 1877. The kabuliyat is Ex. 1 in this case. Its English transliteration is Ex. P. We got the document translated into English by the Court translator. Both these documents were registered on 9 October 1877. By successive transfers the late Sir Chandra Madhab Ghose became the holder of this tenure by 1900. The present defendants are some of the descendants of the late Sir Chandra Madhab Ghose who got this tenure on partition amongst his several heirs. The estates also changed hands and by successive transfers they came to be owned by the late Sir Charu Chandra Ghosh sometime in 1908.

(3.) Settlement operations under part 2 of Chap. 10, Ben. Ten. Act, in respect of these estates took place during 1931-32 and resettlement of the revenue was finally made by 22nd August 1932, for another period of 30 years from 1 April 1933, with Sir Charu Chandra Ghosh. Old revenues of the Estates 1490 and 1491 were Rs. 59-3-8 and Rs. 434-2-8 respectively. The new revenues now became Rs. 428 and Rs. 3734 respectively. In the above proceeding under part 2 of chap. 10, Ben. Ten. Act, the rent of the tenure was settled at Rs. 7660-6-0 with effect from 1 April 1933. This rent was settled by the revenue authorities practically with the consent of the parties and on the basis of the terms of the lease of 1877 as then understood by the parties and by the settlement authorities. The rent thus settled was not challenged by any suit under Section 104-H, Ben. Ten. Act. On the other hand the defendants amicably paid rent at that rate up to Palgoon 1341 B.S.