TAHAL MAHTON Vs. LACHOO MAHTON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four appeals have been heard together as the point involved in them is identical. Two of the appeals arise out of two title suits and the remaining two arise out of two rent suits. It has been conceded before us that the decision in the title suits on the principal point involved in them will govern the decision in the rent suits.

(2.) In order to understand the point involved in the title suits I will briefly refer to the facts set out in the plaint presented in the two suits. The plaintiffs in these suits were admittedly the tenants of two different holdings which are covered by khatas Nos. 812 and 367 of Mauza Akbarpur Asthawan and the defendant- appellants are admittedly the landlords of these holdings. Both the holdings are recorded in the survey khatian as bhaoli, but the case of the plaintiffs is that they were converted into nakdi on 15 Jeth 1336 Fasli by means of an unregistered hukumnama issued by the landlord directing the conversion of the bhaoli rent into nakdi at the rate of Rs. 5 in one case and Rs. 4-8-0 in the other. According to the plaintiffs this nakdi jama became payable from 1337 Fasli onwards and since then they had been paying nakdi rent at the rate stated in the hukumnama. Before the suits were instituted there was a proceeding in regard to these holdings before the Rent Reduction Officer under Section 112A, Bihar Tenancy Act, for the reduction of the rent of the two holdings. This proceeding was instituted by the plaintiffs on the allegation that the rent payable in respect of the holding was cash. The landlords resisted the claim for reduction of rent on the ground that the rent was payable on bhaoli basis. The Rent Reduction Officer overruled the objection of the landlords and passed an order for the reduction of the rent of both the holdings and the order of the Rent Reduction Officer was upheld by the Collector in appeal. The landlord then went up to the Commissioner in revision and the Commissioner set aside the order of the Collector substantially on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to reduce the rent of a holding for which rent was payable on the bhaoli basis. The order of the Commissioner was upheld by the Board of Revenue. These facts were recited in the plaint and after reciting them the plaintiff claimed relief in the following terms: (1) That the holding...situated within the zamindari of the defendant which is raiyati occupancy holding of the plaintiff is held on nakdi system and bears a rental of...and it be declared that the defendant has no right to realise the rental of the holding in question according to the bhaoli system. (2) That the cost of the suit be decreed in favour of the plainttfi, and (3) That any further or other equitable relief to which the plaintiff might be deemed to be entitled be decreed in his favour.

(3.) The Munsif who tried the suit granted a decree in favour of the plaintiffs holding that the plaintiffs had succeeded in establishing that the two holdings were held on cash rent. The decision of the Munsif was, however, reversed on appeal by the Subordinate Judge who held that the holdings in question were not held on a cash rent but on bhaoli basis. The plaintiff has now preferred two second appeals in the title suits. The landlord defendant had instituted two rent suits in respect of the two holdings which were the subject-matter of the title suits claiming recovery of bhaoli rent for certain years. These rent suits were resisted by the tenant- defendants on the ground that no bhaoli rent could be claimed as the holdings were held on a cash rental. The rent suits, however, have been decreed on the same findings as were arrived at in the title suits and now the tenant-defendant in the rent suits who are the same persons as the plaintiffs in the title suit have preferred two second appeals arising out of the rent suits.