FAZLAR RAHMAN BISWAS Vs. GOLAM KADER MIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of three suits brought for recovery of possession of different plots of land. The suits were dismissed by the trial Court. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the Subordinate Judge has reversed the decision of the Munsif and has decreed the suits. The defendants appeal before us and the only point argued on their behalf is that the presumption under the record-of-rights under Section 103B of the Bengal Tenancy Act does not arise in these cases.

(2.) What happened was this: The Subordinate Judge held that these plots of land according to the Cadastral Survey did not appertain to the defendant's holding, but appertained to the holding of the plaintiffs. It was contended before him by the defendants that the plaintiffs had got other co-shavers who were necessary parties and that the plaintiffs could not claim the entire interest in the plots in question. With reference to this contention, the learned Subordinate Judge observed as follows: The Settlement records fully support the plaintiffs and the presumption arising from the same in their favour has been supported by the testimony of P.W. 6, Khandkar Altapar Rahman, one of the alleged co-sharers. It is not improbable that there was an arrangement between the plaintiffs and their co-sharers by which the plaintiffs got the three plots in question in their exclusive possession.

(3.) Upon that finding he passed decrees in favour of the plaintiffs. The argument addressed before us is based upon the provisions of Section 147B of the Bengal Tenancy Act and it is, first, contended that the entry in the record-of-rights is only evidence in a suit between landlord and tenant as such and cannot be used as evidence in a case between tenant and tenant. This argument is based upon a note in the 5 Edition of Mr. Sen's well-known work on the Bengal Tenancy Act. This argument, in my opinion, has the merit of novelty, because it is well known that the record-of-rights has been used as evidence--and it has been of frequent occurrence--in a case between one tenant and another with regard to possession of property. Nevertheless, when this objection has been raised, it should be properly dealt with.