DHANIA NAMASIT Vs. HAJI NIAMATULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is on behalf of defendant No. 2 in a suit instituted against him and the Secretary of State for India in Council as defendant No. 1 by the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of possession of land and mesne profits. Both the Courts below have granted him a decree for possession. The first Court granted him a decree for mesne profits also, making the Secretary of State for India in Council liable for one fourth and defendant No. 2 for three- fourths of the mesne profits. Both the Secretary of State for India and defendant No. 2 preferred appeals to the learned District Judge. The Subordinate Judge who heard the appeals maintained the decree for possession but absolved the Secretary of State for India from the liability of paying mesne profits and held that defendant No. 2 was alone liable. Defendant No. 2 has preferred this appeal and challenges the decree for mesne profits only.

(2.) The plaintiffs came to Court with the case that one Sheikh Sheru of Kankurail was the owner of the disputed beel which was treated as a landed estate and assessed to revenue by the Government, under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, and an engagement for a term was entered into by Sheru with Government. The said term expired in 1918 when the Government officers took upon themselves the work of re-settlement under the said Regulation. In 1306 the plaintiff purchased the property from Sheru, paid revenue and remained in possession till 1918. No settlement was, however, offered to him. The defendant No. 2 obtained the Potta from the Government and began to possess the property. The Munsif found that Sheru was the owner of the beel and that the plaintiff acquired the same by purchase from him. He also found that plaintiff had the status of a landholder under the said Regulation and was in possession at the time of the re-settlement in the year 1918, but was not offered a settlement by the Government. He accordingly decreed the claim of the plaintiff in the manner indicated above. The learned Subordinate Judge substantially affirmed these findings of the Munsif. Before me it is contended by defendant No. 2 that he is not liable for mesne profits. It is said that he was in possession under a settlement from the Government and was in no sense a wrongdoer, and that although he is bound to give up possession to the plaintiff he is under no liability to pay mesne profits.

(3.) The question seems to be of first impression and depends upon the construction of Secs.32, 35, 39 and 62 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, I of 1886. Section 32 provides that: (1) the settlement officer shall offer settlement to such persons (if any) as lie finds to be in possession of the estate and to have a permanent, heritable and transferable right of use and occupancy (2) if the settlement officer finds no person in possession as aforesaid, it shall be in his discretion to offer settlement to any person he thinks fit.