NIBARAN CHANDRA SAHA Vs. MATILAL SHAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is on behalf of plaintiff No. 1 and arises out of a suit (Title Suit No. 99 of 1929) instituted by him and another person named Aditya Prosad Shaha for a declaration that the compromise decree passed in Title Suit No. 503 of 1923 is fraudulent, collusive and illegal, that defendants Nos. 1 to 3 have acquired no rights thereunder for enabling them to receive rent or profits of the land (Dag No. 2213) covered by the said decree from defendants Nos. 4 to 6 and for confirmation of their possession therein. One or two other reliefs of an incidental nature is also asked but it is not necessary to detail them for the purpose of this appeal. To the suit one Sadanand has been made a pro forma defendant (pro forma defendant No. 7). This suit will be called hereinafter as the title suit and whenever the words plaintiffs or defendants are used, they shall be deemed to be the persons named as plaintiffs or defendants in this title suit.

(2.) Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 instituted a suit being money Suit No. 1 of 1929 (hereafter called the Money Suit) against defendants Nos. 4 to 6 for recovery of rent or profits from them of the lands described in Dag No. 2213. To this suit the plaintiffs and pro forma defendant No. 7 have been impleaded as pro forma defendants Nos. 5 to 7. No relief has been claimed against them.

(3.) It appears that the plaintiffs and pro forma defendant No. 7 held a howla named Howla Jiban Krishna Shaha which include Dag No. 2213. The said Dag was formerly held under them by some boatman on a service tenure. The boatmen sold the plot to one Brojobashi Shaha, the father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and grandfather of defendant No. 3. Defendants Nos. 4 to 6 had been subtenants under the boatmen.