ABDUL RAHMAN CHOWDHURI Vs. AHMADAR RAHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellant purchased a putni taluk at a sale held in execution of a decree for arrears of rent, and sued to recover possession of the lands in suit which were included in the taluk, from the defendants who were in possession thereof by purchase from the former putnidar. The Courts below dismissed the suit on the ground that the purchases made by the defendants of portions of the putni were "incumbranees" within the meaning of Section 161, Bengal Tenancy Act, which had not been annulled according to the provisions of Section 167 of that Act. The plaintiff has appealed to this Court.

(2.) Before dealing with the above question, I will notice a point raised on behalf of the respondents, viz., that the landlord was bound to recognise the transfers of portions of a permanent tenure, and the transferees not having been made parties to the rent suit, the sale held in execution of the decree for rent passed only the interest of the person who was a party to the decree. But the tenure in the present case is a putni tenure, and under the Putni Regulation, transfers of fractional portions of a putni taluk are not binding upon the zemindar, although the transferee acquires a valid title to the portion purchased. This is clear from Sections 5 and 6 of the Regulation, and if any authority were needed, I may refer to the decision of the Judicial Committee in Watson & Co. v. Collector of Zillah Rajshahye 12 W.R. (P.C.) 43 : 13 M.I.A. 160 : 3 B.L.R. (P.C.) 48 : 2 Suth. P.C.J. 269 : 2 Sar. P.C.J. 500 : 200 E.R. 511. The cases relied upon on behalf of the respondent do not support his contention. In Sourendra Mohan Tagore v. Surnomoyi 3 C.W.N. 38 : 26 C. 103, it was held that although the transferee of a fractional share of a putni cannot enforce registration of his name on payment of the necessary fee and tender of the requisite security, yet the transfer is not altogether void, and he is liable for rent severally and jointly with the registered tenant, if the landlord chooses to recognise him as one of the joint holders of the putni and he is also liable for the entire rent of the putni estate. The other case, Aosub Ali Pramanik v. Biseshuri 8 C.L.J. 554, also is to the same effect. These cases are no authorities for the proposition that the transfer of a share in putni, without the express consent of the Zemindar is binding upon him. They only lay down that the transferee is liable jointly with the registered putnidar if the landlord chooses to recognise him as one of the joint holders of the putni. In the present case, the zemindar did not recognize the transferees and he was not bound to do so. This contention must, therefore, be overruled.

(3.) The zemindar sued the registered putnidar for rent, and in execution of the decree for rent brought the tenure to sale, and the plaintiff purchased it with power to annul all incumbrances. The defendants were unregistered transferees of the putni, and the question is whether their interests were incumbrances within the meaning of Section 161 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.