SUCKCHAND DAS Vs. GIRIDHARI DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of possession of the lands in suit on establishment of the plaintiff's title thereto. The facts are various and complicated but for the purposes of the present appeal they may be shortly stated as follows.

(2.) Priyanath Das (brother of the plaintiff) was the original tenant in respect of the land in suit under the Burdwan Raj. In 1901 the Maharaja obtained a rent decree against him and the holding was sold in execution of the decree and purchased by the Raj in 1903. In 1904 and 1905 the Raj let out the holding on an yearly tenancy to one Kailash. In 1907 a lease was granted to him of this land for an indefinite period. In 1906 Priyanath brought a suit against the Maharaja for establishment of title and other reliefs but it was dismissed. In 1908 there were proceeding under Section 145 Criminal P.C. between Kailash and Priyanath which terminated in favour of Kailash. In 1907 a suit was brought by two women Bhairabi and Brindabati who were said to be the mortgagees of Priyanath against him on an unregistered kot kabala said to have been executed by Priyanath in their favour. There was a consent decree in the suit which was executed and the holding was put up to sale and it was purchased by the two women and possession taken against Priyanath. In 1909 a suit was instituted by Gadadhar (heir of Bhairabi) and Brindabati under Section 69, Bengal Tenancy Act against the Maharaja but the suit was dismissed in 1911. In 1910 Gadadhar and Brindabati executed a kot kabala in favour of the plaintiff who in 1912 brought a suit on it and obtained a decree in execution in which he purchased the holding and claimed to obtain possession of it in 1913, In 1913 one Baikuntha Pandey obtained a decree for money against Kailash and in execution of it purchased the holding and on his attempting to take possession a claim was filed by the plaintiff which was allowed. Baikuntha did not take any further steps in the matter and, so far as this litigation is concerned, he seems to be unconcerned and is out of it.

(3.) In 1917 the Maharaja instituted a rent suit against Kailash which was decreed. On the 16 July 1917, the plaintiff deposited the decretal amount. The Maharaja objected to the right of the plaintiff to make the deposit under Section 170 Bengal Tenancy Act, but executing Court passed the following order: "The petitioner's locus standi is proved and he is permitted to deposit the amount." On the 21 September 1917 the Maharaja withdrew the amount so deposited by the plaintiff. In 1918 another suit for rent was brought by the Maharaja against Kailash. A decree was obtained on the 20 June 1919 and the property was put up to sale on 20 February 1920 and purchased by Defendant No. 1 who is the appellant before us. The plaintiff preferred a claim which was dismissed on the 2 April, 1921. The present suit was instituted on the 28 September 1921 against the purchaser (Defendant No. 1) and the Maharaja of Burdwan. It appears that the plaintiff paid rent to the Maharaja in respect of this holding for a portion of 1325 and 1326 which was accepted. The defence of the defendant was that the plaintiff was never the tenant of the Maharaja and had no cause of action for the suit. The trial Court held that the unregistered kot kabala in favour of Bhairabi and Brindabati who were said to be Priyanath's aunt and mistress was a collusive document and the litigation following it was not bona fide. In this view it held that the plaintiff got no title from Gadadhar and Brindabati. With regard to the subsequent part which the plaintiff took in the rent suits against Kailash the trial Court held that the plaintiff got no title and in this view dismissed the plaintiff's suit.