RAGHUNANDAN SINGH Vs. SMSOUBHAGYA SUNDRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent, Sm. Soubhagya Sundri Devi, instituted 225 rent suits for recovery of arrears of rent from the tenant-defendants of different villages within the Joypur revenue paying estate bearing touzis nos. 6 and 12 as an ijaradar of the said touzis by virtue of an ijara patta (Ex. 1) executed by Brajaraj Kumari in favour of the plaintiff on 9-12-1940. The mouzas in question originally belonged to Bhikhambar Singh. He made a bequest of the estate in favour of Raghunandan Singh, the appellant (pro forma defendant 1) and another, Chandrabali, in equal shares. Chandrabali was the senior-most wife of Bhikhambar Singh. The appellant took out probate of the will being an executor. Brajaraj Kumari, pro forma defendant 2, is the daughter and only heir of Chandrabali who has since died. This daughter Brajaraj Kumari executed the above mentioned ijara patta in respect of half the estate. The plaintiff in framing the suit as a rent suit, besides impleading the tenants from whom the rent is due, also impleaded the two pro forma defendants, namely, Raghunandan Singh, the appellant, and Brajraj Kumari her lessor.

(2.) The suits were contested, by pro forma defendant 1 as well as by some of the tenants who pleaded bona fide payment of rent to Raghunandan Singh. The latter claimed that, as the sole executor of the will, he alone was entitled to recover rent and not the plaintiff. In order to establish the plea in defence the appellant raised certain other subsidiary points such as non-registration of the plaintiff's name under the provision of Section 78, Land Registration Act, and certain other pleas not material for the purpose of this case.

(3.) The learned trial Court overruled all the objections of the defendants and granted the plaintiff a decree for half the share of the total rent due with full costs and interest at 6 per cent. As against the decree of rent suit No. 4379, out of the 225 rent suits that were consolidated for analogous trial and disposed of by one judgment, the pro forma defendant 1 preferred an appeal being rent appeal No. 36 of 1943 in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Manbhum who dismissed the appeal holding that the same was barred by res judicata. Hence, this second appeal.