RAHIMUDDIN MOLLAH Vs. NIRODBARANI DEBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule is directed against a decree passed by a Court of Small Causes in a suit for recovery of price of half the produce of land against the defendant as a bargadar.

(2.) The only contention raised is that the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to try a suit for recovery of a share of the produce payable by a bargadar which is a suit for rent. This question was not raised by the defendant in the Court below and it has not been noticed in the judgment of that Court.

(3.) It is, however, contended by the learned Vakil for the petitioner that the plaintiff herself in her plaint states that the defendant was entered in the Record of Rights as bargadar and in possession as bargadar that these go to show that the defendant had some sort of a tenancy rights and that unless he had such a right he would not be recorded in the Record of Rights.