RAJENDRA LAL BANDOPADHYAYA Vs. JOGENDRA NATH BANDOPADHAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is on behalf of pro forma defendants 4, 5, 8 and 10 in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent from 1333 up to the third Kist of 1336. The first Court granted the plaintiff a decree for rent only up to the Pous Kist of 1334, but the lower appellate Court has decreed the suit in full. The lands in suit appertain to parent estate No. 4407 of Faridpur Collectorate. 4as 16 1/2 gds share of the said estate was known as Hissya Durga Ram Roy. The said Hissya was owned by four groups of persons. The owners of the said Hissya created four permanent tenures, three Shikmi Taluks and a Kayemi Mirash.

(2.) In this suit we are concerned with one of the Shikmi Taluks, namely Taluk Kashi Chandra Bandopadhyaya. The said Shikmi Taluk was created either in favour of the 3 groups of the owners of Hissya Durga Ram Roy or have been subsequently acquired by the said owners. Proceedings under the Estates Partition Act (5 of 1897 B.C.) were started. The co-proprietors of Touzi No. 4407 who had not granted the Shikmi Taluks or the Kayemi Mirash got their allotments which did not include the lands of the Shikmi Taluks and the Kayemi Mirash. In the valuation of their Shahams, assets were taken, as it must be, on a Ryotwari basis. The allotment made to the proprietors of Hissya Durga Ram Roy was on this basis, namely that besides getting other lands each group of such proprietors was allotted one of the said permanent tenures either a Shikmi taluk or the Kayemi Mirash. The plaintiffs got Shaham No. 14 and the pro forma defendants Shaham No 13. To each of these Shahams was included one of the four permanent tenures, Shikmi Taluk Kashi Chandra Bandopadhyaya being included in Shaham No. 13. The partition was completed in Pous 1334.

(3.) Before the partition Shikmi Taluk Kashi Chandra Bandopadhyaya was held in equal shares by the three groups of persons who were also proprietors of Hissya Durga Ram Roy, each of the said three groups having a fourth share of Hissya Durga Ram Roy. Ramani Mohan Roy and others formed one of such groups. Plaintiffs purchased 6 annas 4 gandas 1 kara 21 jabs share out of the share of Ramani Mohan Roy and others both in the said Shikmi Taluk and the touzi and the pro forma defendants the remaining share both in the said Shikmi Taluk and the Touzi. The plaintiffs have sued one set of the raiyats whose lands fall within Shikmi Taluk Kasi Chandra Bandopadhya, claiming 6 annas 4 gandas 1 kara 21 jabs of one third of the rent due from them. They are no doubt entitled to this share of the rent as part owners of the Shikmi taluk up to the date when the partition became final, i.e., up to Pous kist of 1334. The question is whether they are entitled to claim any rent in their character of Shikmi talukdars after the partition.