SREEMATI CHOWDHURY MAHESWARI DEI Vs. GAURHARI MAITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff and arises out of a suit brought for recovery of arrears of rent. The main question which arises for decision is what is the effect of certain ex parte rent- decrees obtained by the plaintiff against a tenant who held the land before the defendant purchased the tenancy in execution of a decree for rent obtained by the plaintiff, the landlord against the previous tenant. The facts as stated by the plaintiff appear to be these. One Annapurna held the lands in suit as a raiyat with right of occupancy under the plaintiff at a rent of Rs. 10-6 annas per year for 8 bighas and odd of Land. That Annapurna sold the holding to one Bhagirath in the year 1906, but Annapurpa continued to be the recorded tenant at the time when a suit for arrears of rent as brought and decreed ex parte against her in 1908. This decree, it appears, was for rent for a number of years and the rate of rent claimed was Rs. 10- 6 annas a year. This decree was satisfied. On the 30 August 1911 the plaintiff obtained another decree for rent for a number of years against Annapurna at the same rate of rent and put the holding to sale advertising the same as bearing a rental of Rs. 10-6 annas a year. The holding was sold on the 15 December 1911 and the present defendant purchased the same and obtained the usual sale-certificate. In the sale-certificate the rent of the holding was stated to be Rs. 10-6 annas a year. The plaintiff then brought the present suit for rent for the years 1322 to 1325, claiming rent at the rate of Rs. 10-6 annas per annum for the same area.

(2.) The defence of the defendant was that the rent payable for the holding was Rs. 5-1 annas year and not Rs. 10-6 annas as claimed by the plaintiff.

(3.) The plaintiff amongst other evidence relied upon the ex parte decree passed in the year 1908 and also the decree passed in the year 1911 in execution of which the defendant purchased the holding. The defendant, on the other hand, relied upon an entry in the Record of Rights published in the year 1917, in which the rent was recorded at the rate of Rs. 5-1, anna. Defendant further contended that the ex parte decrees relied upon by the plaintiff were not admissible in evidence, at any rate they were not binding against him as res judicata.