JADOO POTEDAR Vs. SRIMATI CHAMPABATI SAHIBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of a number of rent suits which have been decreed throughout. The tenant-defendants have preferred these appeals under the Letters Patent against the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in second appeals arising out of the rent suits. The suits were brought to recover four annas kist of chait 1348 with respect to a number of holdings which are situated in two villages known as Adidpur and Anandpur. These villages admittedly belonged to the plaintiff's husband, Rao Bahadur Rudra Pratap Singh. On 27 January 1938, Rudra Pratap Singh executed a registered Sadhaua Pataua deed in respect of a number of villages, including the two villages with which we are concerned, in favour of one Khojendra Narain Jha for a period of three years. On 14 December 1938, he executed a registered deed of gift in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the two villages in question. As the term of the Sadhaua Pataua deed was to expire on 27 January 1941, Rudra Pratap Singh executed a second Sadhaua Pataua deed in favour of Khojendra Narain Jha on that very date, that is to say, on 27 January 1941, and it is said that the second deed was executed in pursuance of a condition in the first deed which provided that in case the entire money due under the first deed was not paid within the period of three years, that deed was to be renewed.

(2.) The plaintiff brought these suits for rent on the allegation that after the expiry of the term of the Sadhaua Pataua deed of 1938 in favour of Khojendra Narain Jha, she came into possession of the villages and was entitled to realise rents. The tenant defendants on the other hand pleaded that they had paid rent for the kist in question to Khojendra Narain Jha and had obtained rent receipts. They also produced a number of rent receipts in support of their plea. The Munsif who tried the suits, as well as the learned Judge who heard the appeals from his judgment, went elaborately into the question of title, and held that Rudra Pratap Singh having given away the villages by a deed of gift to his wife was not competent to renew the Sadhaua Pataua document, and therefore Khojendra Narain Singh had acquired no title under the second deed, and the rents were due not to him but to the plaintiff. As regards the plea of payment, which was set up on behalf of the defendants, both the Courts expressed the opinion that even if the rents were paid to the Sadhaua Patauadar that would make no difference to the plaintiff's claim. It was urged on behalf of the defendants that the money which was due under the first Sadhaua Pataua deed had not been paid up, but the Munsif refused to go into the question and observed as follows: It is said that the entire money could not be paid up and hence the deed of extension, Ex. B, was executed by the Rao Bahadur. It is needless for me to consider in these suits as to whether any money remained unpaid after the term had expired or the Rao Bahadur only executed this deed just to harass his wife as she contends before me.

(3.) Again with regard to the plea of actual pay. ment the following passage, which I quote from the judgment of the learned District Judge, will be sufficient to illustrate the attitude of the first two Courts towards this question: In the circumstances, I must agree with the learned Munsif in the finding that even if the rents have been paid to the Sadhaua Patuadar by the tenants under the receipts, these receipts will not constitute a valid or sufficient discharge for the rents due to the recorded proprietress, namely, the plaintiff.