HARI MOHAN MISSER Vs. SURENDRA NARAYAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent represents the owner of a ten-and-a-half-anna share in a putni tenure of considerable extent, Turuf Inaitpur Katakose, in the district of Purnea. The putni included amongst other properties a holding to which the present suit relates. This holding had become vested in Ram Kumar Singh, who, it is not disputed, held as an. occupancy raiyat, enjoying as such the rights conferred upon a tenant of that class by the Bengal Tenancy Act (VIII of 1885). Ram Kumar Singh, in conjunction with some of the owners of shares in the putni, took steps for the purpose of growing indigo on the holding, and for the erection of an indigo factory within its limits.

(2.) The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Purnea, by the owners of the ten-and-a-half anna share in the putni, to obtain an injunction restraining the carrying out of the proposed changes. It is unnecessary to consider the constitution of the suit. It is enough to say that all necessary parties were joined, and that everything turns upon the rights of the ten-and-a-half-anna sharers in the putni on the one hand, and those of Ram Kumar Singh, the occupancy tenant of the holding, on the other.

(3.) The enactment governing the case is Section 23 of the Bengal Tenancy Act which says: "When a raiyat has a right of occupancy in respect of any land, he may fuse the land in any manner which does not materially impair the value of the land or render it unfit for the purposes of the tenancy."