MUKUND JHA Vs. DHORUP NARAIN JHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit for partition of a zamindari property situated in mauzas Brindaban and Ladaura. From the judgment of the Court of appeal below it appears that it was an admitted fact that the bakasht lands of the estate were divided sometime previously but that the land in occupation of the tenants was not at all divided although each of the pattidars collected his share of the rent from the tenants separately. In second appeal it is argued that this finding amounts to a finding that there was a complete partition of the proprietary interest inasmuch as the bakasht land of which the proprietors were entitled to possession were admittedly divided and that as, regards the tenants land they had only the right to collect rents and this right was also divided. THIS appears to be the case, as was held in Doorga Kant Lahoory V/s. Radha Mohun Gooho (1867) 7 WR 51, where it was held that lands held thus in joint possession cannot be divided under the batwara laws, nor can a partition be made by the civil Court irrespective of the revenue authorities. The result is that the decree of the Court of appeal below must be set aside and this appeal allowed. The appellant will have only half his costs as there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents. Varma, J.

(2.) I agree.