BHUSAN CHANDRA GHOSH Vs. SRAKANTA BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Burdwan, in which he gave judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 whom I may call the Ghose defendants have appealed.

(2.) Now, it appears that in 1886 the Mookerjees who held under one Amir Ali entered into an agreement with an individual whom I shall call Pal, by which a subordinate tenure was created, and it appears that this tenure was of the character of a permanent under-tenure. It was in respect of sixty bighas, but apparently prior to 1889 a man called Gobardhan had got into occupation of 2 1/2 bighas, part of the sixty bighas, and he was paying rent to the first and second defendants, the Ghoses, and in 1889 Pal brought an action against Gobardhan and the first two defendants, the Ghoses, for the purpose of recovering possession of the 21/2 bighas. He failed in that action and from that time Gobardhan or some other occupant has been in possession of the 2 1/2 bighas, and Gobardhan or the other occupant has been paying rent to the Ghoses down to the institution of the present suit.

(3.) Now, a suit for rent was brought by the landlord against the Mookerjees in 1902, and a decree was, obtained in that suit. The plaintiff purchased the land in pursuance of that decree and in order to obtain possession of the land free from incumbrances he gave notice or caused notice to be given to Pal or his representatives--I am not sure whether he was still alive--for the purpose of putting an end to the incumbrance which was the agreement of tenancy created between the Mukerjees and Pal. But the Ghoses say in this case that they too were the holders of an incumbrance within the meaning of Section 167 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and, therefore, they were entitled to notice, and that is the question in this case, namely, whether the Ghoses were in the position of holders of such an incumbrance as entitled them to notice under Section 167. I am of opinion that they were.