MT KABUTRI Vs. RAM PRASHAD SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two Miscellaneous Appeals and a Civil Revision which have arisen out of the following circumstances: The plaintiff, Rai Bahadur Harihar Prasad Singh was the proprietor of mauza Baragaon and in that mauza one Ramlakhan held 27 bighas and odd as a raiyat. In July 1926, Ramlakhan sold 3 bighas 8 kathas to one Bansropan Sahu who is one of the appellants before us (in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 37 of 1934). At a somewhat later date which does not seem to be precisely known, he sold 8 bighas 6 dhurs to the husband of one Mt. Kabutri who is appellant before us in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 301 of 1933. Both the sales were accepted by the landlord and the lands purchased by each purchaser were given a separate rental and a khata No., and Ramlakhan was left in cultivation of 16 bighas with a rent of approximately Rs. 100. On 19 September 1929, Rai Bahadur Harihar Prasad Singh sued for the arrears of rent due for the years 1333 to 1336 F.S., and it is agreed that in respect of the year 1333 the claim for rent was for a period prior to the time either of the two sales to the appellants before us was recognized.

(2.) The plaint in the suit of which a translation has been put before us recites the facts of the respective purchases and states that the rent is in arrears and therefore asks for a decree in the following manner: (i) that the amount claimed in respect of rent be awarded against the properties and persons of the defendants, viz., against all of them: (ii) in the event of the defendants refusing to have the khatas separated and if the arrangement should be considered in the suit to be illegal by the Court, that a decree might be passed in respect of the entire holding as specified in Schedule A to the plaint (Sch. A sets forth the area of the lands known as Lakhan Singh, viz., the entire khata before the separation); and (iii) that if the defendants did not refuse that, a decree might be passed in respect of the remaining lands after excluding the lands transferred to the appellants in these appeals.

(3.) The suit was not defended and the two transferees of the portions of the holding did not appear before the Court to dispute the separation of the khata or indeed to take any other attitude with the result that a decree was granted to this effect: This suit coming this day for final disposal before the Munsif of the First Court, Arrah, and in the presence of the pleader for the plaintiff and in the absence of the defendants it is ordered and decreed ex parte that a sum of Rs. 831-5-3 be paid by defendant (sic) to the plaintiff together with Interest at 6 per cent, till realization and together with costs.