RAM CHARAN CHAKRABURTY Vs. RAJ KUMAR CHAKRABURTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff and arises out of a suit for recovery of rent. The question between the parties is whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover at the present market rate the value of 6 bishes of paddy or at the rate of Rs. 20 per year. The present market value of 6 bishes is Rs. 70. The Court of first instance decreed the suit at the amount claimed by the plaintiff giving the defendant a credit to the extent of Rs. 20 on account of payment. The learned Subordinate Judge on appeal has held that the plaintiff is entitled to claim only at the rate of E Section 20 per year. The rights of the parties are governed by the terms of a registered kabuliyat dated 4 Baisakh 1295. The kabuliyat begins and ends by saying that it is a kabuliyat for lands let out at a produce rent. After stating that the tenant will have to deliver 6 bishes of paddy every year, it proceeds on to state that if the tenant fails to deliver the paddy, the landlord would be entitled to realize amically or by suit the ticca sum of Rs. 20 with interest at the rate of Re. 1 per month. The use of the word ticca gave rise to controversy between the parties. The learned Subordinate Judge relying apparently on one of the meanings given to that word by Wilson in his Glossary came to the conclusion that ticca means fixed in perpetuity . In this respect, he is certainly supported by Wilson and I cannot say that the interpretation of the word ticca given by the learned Subordinate Judge is a wrong interpretation.

(2.) I do not however wish to rest my judgment on that point alone. According to the terms of the kabuliyat which I have quoted above, the parties themselves provided for the case where the tenant would fail to deliver the paddy. It is stated that the landlord would be entitled to realise the sum of Rs. 20 with interest at the rate of Re. 1 per month. The parties therefore contemplated that in case of non--delivery of the paddy, the landlord would be entitled to claim only the money mentioned in the kabuliyat and that with a certain rate of interest. It is significant that on non--delivery of paddy, there is no stipulation of interest being calculated in terms not of kind, that is, there is no provision for what is termed Bari . In my view therefore on a fair reading of the kabuliyat the landlord is entitled to payment, in default of delivery of paddy of Rs. 20 per year with interest as stipulated for in the kabuliyat. The result is that this appeal is dismissed with costs.