SATYA BHUPAL BANERJEA Vs. RAJNANDINI DEBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are three appeals by the defendant against a decision of the District Judge of Hughly, modifying a decision of the 2nd Subordinate Judge. The suits were for rent in respect of two putnis is held by the defendant in two separate moujas. Appeal No. 863 relates to a putni in mouja Samnarainpur ana Appeals Nos. 1218 and 1219 relate to a putni in the other mouja. The suits were brought to recover an 8 annas share of the rent. Under the putni the rent was payable in ten monthly kists, the last kists being payable in the month of Magh. On the 22ad Falgun 1326 there was a partition between the co-sharers as a result of which the whole proprietary interest passed to the defendant, and the plaintiff's claim for rent is resisted with regard to a period of one month and seven days of the year 1326, because the defendant contends that it is not right that he should not receive rent for seven days of Palgoon and for the month of Chait inasmuch as he was the proprietor during this period by virtue of the partition. There is no doubt that there is a good deal to be said on general grounds in support of the contention put forward on behalf of the defendant, but in our opinion the matter is covered by the two cases to which we have been referred, namely Satyendranath Thakur v. Nilkanth Singh (1893) 21 Cal. 383 and Mathewson V/s. Shyam Sundar Singh (1906) 33 Cal. 786. In effect these cases decide that rent does not accrue from day to day, but is payable in accordance with the contract. In the present case the contract for the payment of rent was that the tenth kist should be paid at the end of the month of Magh. Consequently, in our opinion, unless there is any statute whereby the rent is apportionable or unless there is any contract between the parties as to the rent for 1 month and 7 days, the contention of the defendant cannot succeed. The only statute in this country dealing with apportionment in Section 36 of the Transfer of Property Act, and that does not apply to agricultural lands and consequently has no application. When the partition took place, there was no stipulation made by the defendant that he should be entitled to the rent for this one month and seven days. This being so, it seems to us that the appeal fails as the point is covered by the two decisions to which we have been referred.

(2.) The result is that the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs. Chakravarti, J.

(3.) I agree.