JAGADISH CHANDRA MUKERJI Vs. RASIK MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of possession of certain lands on declaration of the plaintiff's right to khas possession. These lands were previously in the occupation of a tenant named Adu Baroi under the owner Bhabani who died leaving his daughter, Joy Durga, as his heir. After that one Mati Lal purchased the holding of Adu in execution of a mortgage- decree in 1900. Joy Durga brought a suit against Mati Lal at an enhanced rate of rent. This suit was compromised between the parties. Under the term of the compromise the rent was enhanced and it was declared that Mati would have a permanent and transferable right in the land.

(2.) In the year 1910 Mati sub-let the land to defendants Nos. 2 and 3. In 1916 Mati sold the land to defendant No. 1. The plaintiff who succeeded to the landlord's interest in the property on the death of his mother Joy Durga in 1902 has brought,this suit for ejectment on the ground that Mati had no transferable interest. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit for khas possession. It was held by the lower Appellate Court in confirmation of the decision of the trial Court that Mati had a transferable interest. It is argued on behalf of the plaintiff that this was held with reference to a solenamah which was Ex. (A), but that the solenamah was not admissible in evidence for want of registration. The solenamah was filed in the, rent suit brought by Joy Durga against Mali as we have already stated and the question is whether this solenamah was incorporated in the decree or not. The decree stated that at solenamah had been filed by the party and the suit was decreed in terms of the solenamah in favour of the plaintiff for one rupee. This in substance incorporated the solenamah, as part of the decree as no such decree could have been passed without reference to the solenamah. If that is so, it was admissible in evidence without registration. Further, the Courts below have held that that document only contains the admission by the landlord. The present plaintiff filed the petition of compromise on behalf of his mother and had also ratified the transaction and accepted rent in accordance with its terms since the death of his mother in 1902 till the date of the present suit. On these grounds it is not possible to say that the decision of the lower Appellate Court is wrong.

(3.) The appeal must, therefore, be dismissed with costs. Greaves, J.