CHANDRA KANTA CHAKRABARTTY Vs. RAM KRISHNA MAHALNABIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case I think that the appeal should be dismissed. The whole question, in my opinion, turns upon the construction of the sanad, which is to be found at page 19 of the paper-book. If by that, a part of the taluk which was existing at the date of the Permanent Settlement was assigned to the defendant s predecessor, then the plaintiff had no case. On the other hand, if there was a new tenure created at a new rate of rent, different from that which was applicable to the taluk which was existing before that date, then the plaintiff had some case for consideration.

(2.) The question depends upon Section 6 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, which says that where a tenure has been held from the time of the Permanent Settlement, its rent shall not be liable to enhancement except on proof of certain matters mentioned in that section.

(3.) Now, looking at that sanad, it seems to me that there had been before the date of it a taluk in a certain village the rent of which was Rs. 105-15-1 price, in respect of certain lands which in themselves had been carved out of a larger tenure, the word used being taksim jama. Then by this transaction it appears that the talukdars of that particular village had assigned a portion of the taluki right to the defendant s predecessor, and they assigned it subject to the confirmation by the superior landlord. That confirmation was given by the document which is now before us. It recites that the talukdars assigned a part of their taluk and at a particular rate of rent which, in my opinion, must be assumed to be the same rate at which the larger taluk had been held by the talukdar Therefore, in my judgment the learned Judge of this Court and the learned Judge of the first Appellate Court were right in holding that there was no new tenure created but that there was an assignment of part of the old tenure, and, therefore, this tenure was one that had been held from the time of the Permanent Settlement.