BUDHAN MAHTON Vs. RAMANUGRAH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, which is by-defendant 1, was originally presented as a second appeal from the decision of the learned District-Judge of Patna confirming the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, Patna. The appeal was valued at Rs. 2929-1-11 which was the value of the suit and also of the appeal before the District Judge. The stamp-reporter of this Court was of opinion that the suit as well as the appeal to this Court should have been valued at Rs. 7679-1-11. His report was accepted and the appeal was valued at Rs. 7679-1-11. The valuation of the suit was also similarly amended, and the plaintiffs respondents paid the deficit court-fee on the plaint. The appeal was accordingly treated as a first appeal, ignoring the decision of the District Judge which must be deemed to have been passed without jurisdiction.

(2.) The suit was brought by the plaintiffs for recovery of possession of 9 annas share of village Jalalpur Paindapur and for recovery of Rs. 2279-1-11 as mesne profits, or, in the alternative, as damages The plaintiff's claimed title to the disputed 9 annas share under a thika lease dated 28-6-1940 granted to them by defendant 2 at an annual jama of Rs. 650 for the period from the beginning of 1348 to 1354 Fasli. The disputed 9 annas share had previously been given by defendant 2 in zarpeshgi lease to defendant 1 under a patta dated 13-10-1939 for the period 1341 to 1347 Fasli. The plaintiffs case was that the lease of defendant 1 came to an end in 1347 and he gave up possession of the disputed property, and that the plaintiffs came in possession under the lease dated 28-6-1940 granted to them by defendant 2, but subsequently as a result of a proceeding under Section 144, Criminal P.C., defendant 1 dispossessed the plaintiffs from the disputed property on 12-3-1941. As in the course of the proceeding under Section 144 defendant 1 claimed that Rs. 100 was still due to him from defendant 2 on account of the zarpeshgi money, the plaintiffs deposited the sum of Rs. 100 in favour of defendant 1 under Section 83, T.P. Act, on 30-5-1941. The plaintiffs then brought the present suit on 13-6-1941.

(3.) The suit was contested by defendant 1 on the grounds, inter alia, that the plaintiffs never came in possession of the disputed property, that at the time of wasilbaqi on 28 Jeth 1347 defendant 2 demanded from defendant 1 Rs. 100 more besides Rs. 108-13-3 due to him, that defendant 1 paid this amount to defendant 2 and was allowed to continue in possession of the disputed property, and that the plaintiffs acquired no valid title under their alleged lease.