SURYA KANT A GHATTAK Vs. ANANDA MOHAN CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question in this case is whether or not the plaintiff is barred from recovering rent in respect of one of the properties in suit by reason of the fact that he has not been registered under the provisions of Section 78 of the Land Registration Act, VII of 1876. Such registration is not necessary if it can be shown that his case falls within the provisions of Section 81 which speaks of written contracts. The learned Judge was of opinion, though as he says with some doubt, that Section 81 did not avail the plaintiff in this case because, as ho was disposed to road that section, it referred to a contract between the proprietor himself and his tenants, that is, the parties themselves, and not to a contract entered into either between the predecessors of the parties or between a successor of one of the parties and another original party.

(2.) In the present case, there was a registered kabuliat executed by Ananda Mohan Chattopadhya in favour of Amrita Lal Bandopadhya. The property was sold to the father of the plaintiff and it then descended to the plaintiff. The defendant is a tenant, By the terms of that kabuliat, the contract is one which is entered into not merely between the executant and recipient of the kabuliat but between them and their respective heirs and successors. It must, therefore, I think, be taken in this case that there is a contract between the plaintiff as successor of Amrita Lal Bandopadhya and the defendant. There being, therefore, a contract between the parties, the case falls within the provisions of Section 81 and registration was not necessary.

(3.) It is suggested that there should be an issue tried as to whether or not, as stated to us now, the sum of Rs. 20 was remitted of the rent and it is said that the lands of property No. 3 were held free of rent, but there is no trace of any such issue having been raised in either of the Courts below. Therefore, there can be no remand upon this question now.