BIPIN BEHARY BHATTACHARYA Vs. PANCHANAN BHATTACHARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit which was instituted under Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for amendment of an entry in a Record of Rights, and has been transferred to the Civil Court for trial under the proviso to that section. The case for the plaintiff is that the disputed land was the rent-free tenure of one Ram Kumar Bhattacharjee who died leaving a widow, Durgamoni upon whose death, the plaintiff became the nearest reversionary heir. Subsequently as one Rash Behary Bhattacharjee got Letters of Administration to the estate left by Ram Kumar Bhattacharjee, the plaintiff, in order to fortifiy his title, took a conveyance from him on the 1st July 1899. The case for the defendants is that the disputed land was the rent-free tenure of Rajbullabh Bhattacharjee, from whose descendant, Abhoy Charan Bhattacharjee, they purchased the property under an unregistered conveyance, dated the 8th April 1862. The Court of first instance made a decree in favour of the plaintiff. Upon appeal, the Subordinate Judge has found that the property did not belong to Ram Kumar Bhattacharjee, that it was the rent-free tenure of Rajbullabh Bhattacharjee and that Abhoy Charan Bhattacharjee was the father of Rash Behary Bhattacharjee, the vendor of the plaintiff. He has further found against the unregistered conveyance set up by the defendants. As the conveyance by Abhoy Charan Bhattacharjee in favour of the defendants or their predecessors is not proved, the property must be taken to have descended from Rajbullabh to Rashbehary, who had executed the conveyance in favour of the plaintiff, whose title is thus established. The Subordinate Judge, however, has not given effect to this view of the case and has dismissed the suit, because he holds that the conveyance by Rash Behary was executed by him in favour of the plaintiff in his character as administrator to the estate of Ram Kumar Bhattacharjee. In our opinion the view taken by the Subordinate Judge cannot possibly be supported.

(2.) An examination of the conveyance executed by Rash Behary shows that he therein alleged that he was the nearest reversionary heir of Ram Kumar Bhattacharjee, that upon the death of Durgamoni, the widow of Ram Kumar, he had taken out Letters of Administration, and that he was in possession of the estate. On these allegations, he transferred the property to the plaintiff. Upon the facts found by the Subordinate Judge, ft transpires that as the conveyance, in favour of the defendants by the father of Rash Behary is not established, the property vested in Rash Behary himself as the representative of Rajbullabh. Consequently, at the time of the execution of the conveyance by Rash Behary in favour of the plaintiff, he was the true owner of the property. Is then the title of the plaintiff affected by the circumstance that Rash Behary professed to deal with the property on the erroneous assumption that he had taken it by inheritance not from Rajbullabh but from Ram Kumar? Clearly the position is absolutely untenable that the title of the plaintiff can, in any way, be affected by what was believed by his vendor to be the real source of his own title. The plaintiff is entitled to succeed if it is established that his vendor had a good title at the time when the conveyance was executed : it is immaterial from what source that title had been derived.

(3.) If A has title to a property which he transfers to B, B acquires a good title thereto : it is clearly immaterial to B, whether A has acquired that title by in heritance from X or by purchase from Y who had set up a preferential claim of heir-ship to the estate of X. A is bound to make good the title of B, whatever the real source of his own title. The question for consideration, consequently, reduces itself to this, is the conveyance set up by the defandants genuine ? The Court of first instance came to the conclusion that its genuineness had not been established, and apparently good reasons were given by that Court in support of its conclusion. The subordinate Judge does not specifically come to any finding upon this question, but merely observes that even if the conveyance is not genuine that does not assist the case of the plaintiff. We have consequently taken action under Section 103 of the Code and considered the evidence as to the genuineness of this conveyance. We are clearly of opinion that the view taken by the Court of first instance is well-founded. The ground upon which the Subordinate Judge has reversed the decision of the Court of first instance cannot consequently be supported.