JOTINDRA NATH HALDAR Vs. ASWINI KUMAR MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen, prayed for recovery of arrears of rent in respect of a tenancy bearing an annual rental of Rs. 627-13-0 held by the tenant defendants, defendants 1 to 29 in the suit. The claim for realisation of rent was in regard to the arrears due for the years 1330 to 1333 B.S. It appears to be clear from the plaint in the suit that the plaintiffs claim for rent was on the footing that the tenant defendants held a tenancy under them comprising an area of 980 bighas of land, in respect of which the rent of Rs. 627-13-0, as mentioned above was payable annually.

(2.) The only defence of the contesting defendants to the claim for rent as made by the plaintiffs was that the plaintiffs had dispossessed them from portions of the land in respect of which rent as claimed in the suit was payable, and substantially interfered with their possession. On that defence, it was asserted by the tenant defendants that there should be total suspension of rent. As it has been stated in the judgment of the trial Court, no evidence was adduced in support of the plea of dispossession from any portion of the lands appertaining to the tenancy in respect of which rent was claimed. It was however urged on the side of the contesting defendants that the facts found and the reasons given in the judgment in a suit for rent for a previous period instituted by the plaintiffs in 1919, should be adopted in the present case.

(3.) It was contended that the question of dispossession of the tenant defendants should be treated as one concluded by the judgment in the previous suit of 1919, Ex. 0. in the case. The trial Court refused to accept the plea of res judicata raised by the tenant defendants, as indicated above; and rejecting the plea of dispossession as raised by them passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. A decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs for recovery of arrears of rent as claimed in the suit. On appeal by the contesting defendants, the decision and decree of the trial Court was reversed by the Court of Appeal below, on the ground that the judgment in the previous rent suit of 1919 operated as res judicata against the plaintiffs, on the question of the dispossession by the plaintiffs, and that regard toeing had to the position that the kabuliat (Ex. 1 in the case) was held in the previous suit of 1919 to be one which had not been acted upon and, there were no material before the Court, on which a decree could be passed in favour of the plaintiffs apportioning the rent payable to them by the tenant defendants. According to the lower appellate Court, the entire rental had to be suspended for the period in suit. The plaintiffs appealed to this Court.