BEHARI LAL MANNA Vs. MURAL DHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit in which the plaintiffs sued for enhancement of rent on the ground of rise in the price of staple food crops. The facts are that the land was debutter of certain Barals of which one Radhamadhab was the shebait who on the 27th September 1889 granted a mourashi mokarrari patta to the defendant's predecessors. There was a suit in the original side of the High Court for the better management of the property and the land now in suit was directed by the Court to be sold, presumably as a secular property for the realization of the costs of the suit. It was purchased by one Haridhon Dutt whose estate afterwards went into the hands of a Receiver from whom the plaintiff purchased the property. The defendant was in possession of the land at an annual jama of Rs. 62 and the present suit is for enhancement of the rent of that jama. The learned Munsif decreed the plaintiffs claim and enhanced the jama to Rs. 7-15-9. That decree was confirmed on appeal by the District Judge of the 24-Parganas.

(2.) The learned Advocate for the appellant has argued three points. He argued in the first place that the defendants mourashi mokarrari tenancy having been recognized by successive owners, the plaintiffs are not entitled to maintain the present suit. On this point the learned Subordinate Judge found that that in 1909 the Receiver brought a suit against the defendants predecessor for rent and in execution of the decree put up the property to sale describing the same as an occupancy holding. It was purchased by one Madhukar on the 23 November 1909 from whom the defendants purchased the holding on 22 November, 1910. From these and other facts the learned Judge is of opinion that the defendants failed to prove that successive owners recognized his tenancy as mourashi mokarrari.

(3.) The second point argued is that the defendant is either a mourashi mokarrari tenant or a trespasser and, therefore, Section 30(b) of the Bengal Tenancy Act does not apply to the present case. This contention has no substance. The defendant is a tenant on the land. By virtue of long possession he has acquired at any rate a right of occupancy. The plaintiffs and their predecessors treated him as a tenant with ordinary right of occupancy. It cannot, therefore, be said that he is a trespasser and, therefore, Section 30(b) does not apply. As to his being a mourashi mokarrari tenant the matter will be considered in connection with the next point.