MT BABBAL KUMARI JAYASWALIN Vs. MULCHAND MARWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Balarampur in Barabhum, Adi Majhi possessed in 1911 a raiyati holding of 2.8 acres on an annual rent of Rs. 6-10-0. At some time (presumably between 1911 and 1921.) Adi Majhi sold to Badluram Jaswal and Kalikaram Jaswal an area of 61 acres out of this holding for the construction of a dwelling house. In 1921 the sons of Adi Majhi, who died before that date, executed a registered deed by which they formally abandoned any claim to this area which had been transferred by their father, making the stipulation that the transferees should pay annually Rs. 5-12-0 as the rent of the holding. In 1925 the transferees applied to the landlord for recognition as tenants.

(2.) The landlord's estate was then being managed under the Encumbered Estates Act. The manager, remarking that the manner in which the petitioners had obtained these lands was illegal, refused to treat them as tenants unless they paid Rs. 200, and arrears of rent for the previous years. On payment being made the appellants were recognised. The purchasers of this land found themselves in 1928 defendants in a money suit which had been instituted by Mulchand Marwari. The plaintiff in that suit applied for attachment before judgment of the house which had been erected on the land which had formerly belonged to Adi Majhi. An objection was taken by the defendant, which was allowed by the Subordinate Judge, who held that the raiyati character of the land remained unchanged; and that therefore it could not be brought to sale by reason of the provisions of Section 47, Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act.

(3.) Within three months of this decision the plaintiffs instituted a. suit under Order 21, Rule 63 praying for a declaration that the property was saleable. The plaint was first presented in the Munsif's Court, but the value of the property exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsif, so that the plaint was ultimately returned for presentation in the Court of the Subordinate Judge. It was presented in the Court of the Subordinate Judge on 16 November 1929. The Subordinate Judge then proceeded to hear the suit, which was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. It was held that the status of the defendants was not that of raiyats as defined by the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act and that the disputed property was liable to be sold in execution of a decree. The defendants appealed to this Court. While the suit was pending Babbal Kumari Jayaswalin had been substituted as a defendant in place of her deceased husband Badluram Jaswal.