PRASANNA KUMAR RAY Vs. ARUN CHANDRA SINGHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are appeals by the tenants in suits by their landlord, under the provisions of Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, claiming additional rent in respect of additional area. The Assistant Settlement Officer in the first Court decreed the suits and held that for measuring the additional lands a pole or nal of 16 cubits should be employed; the landlord appealed against the decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer in so far as he decided that the pole or nal to be employed for measurement should be pole or nal of 16 cubits. The landlord's contention was that according to the true construction to be placed upon the dowl in the various suits the pole or nal to be employed was one of the 14 cubits and the Special Judge who heard the appeals has agreed with this contention. These appeals are directed against this decision and this is the only point which arises in these appeals. The Special Judge disposed of all these appeals by reference to a judgment which he gave in another case, which is not under appeal, in which the same point arose and he has incorporated that judgment in his judgments in all the cases from which these appeals arise. The dowls in all the cases are, we are told, substantially the same and the appeals have been argued on this basis but the dowls bear different dates between the years 1259 B.S. and 1280 B.S. and in Appeals Nos. 1476, 1477,1801, 1802 and 1893 of 1922 the dowls bear date before the year 1267 B.S. The two appeals first argued before us were Nos. 419 and 420 of 1922, so it will be convenient to refer to the dowls of these two appeals.

(2.) Those who appeared in the other appeals all adopted the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellants in Appeals Nos. 419 and 420 of 1922 and in some cases supplemented these arguments, but although in some cases reference was made by them to the dowls of their particular appeals it was not suggested that there was any material difference in the dowls so as to affect the point arising in these appeals.

(3.) The dowl kabuliyat in Appeal No. 419 of 1922 is dated the 11 Magh 1259 (23 January (1853) and the interest thereby created is a taluki interest. The dowl refers to the land being settled as being khas mehal in own cultivation (mehal khas khod khasta) in possession of self and measuring according to the measurement of 1249-1256 B.S. made by a pole of 16 cubits of 18 inches each 4 kanis odd. Some discussion arose as to the meaning of the words khod khasta " in own cultivation" and it was suggested that it meant that the intermediate interest, that of the Talukdar, having come to an end the tenants on the land were paying their rent direct to the zemindar, but there is no evidence of this and we must, I think, take the words as meaning that the lands were being cultivated by the zemindar either through raiyats or by hired labour. The words cannot be strained to moan of necessity cultivation by raiyats.