RAJANI KANTA BISWAS Vs. EKKOWRI DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this case are as follows: The plaintiff, Ekkowri Das, alleged that he had a jama of 2 bighas, which he held under the principal defendant. He was in want of money to meet the expenses of a marriage, and accordingly sold this jama to the defendant, Bipin Krishna Ray, on the 23 Baisakh 1306. The following day, i.e. the 24 Baisakh 1306, he took a settlement of the jama under Bipin Krishna Ray at a rental of Rs. 20, and has remained in possession of the land ever since. It is to be noted that this Bipin Krishna Ray was not originally made a defendant. The suit Was instituted on the 15 September 1903, and Bipin Krishna Ray was not made a party to the suit till the 23 June 1904.

(2.) The plaintiff goes on in his plaint to say that after the sale by him of the land to Bipin Krishna Ray the latter sent the rent for 1308 and 1309 by money order to the landlord, the defendant No. 1, but the defendant No. 1 refused to receive it. "Subse-quently, the defendant No. 1 demanded rent from the plaintiff, but the plaintiff told him to realize rent from the said purchaser on the allegation of the sale of the land." Then the landlord defendant "detained the paddy on the land." But the plaintiff, notwithstanding the detention, cut the paddy, upon which the landlord removed the paddy. The plaintiff sued him for the value of the paddy in the Small Cause Court, but lost his case. The defendant No. 1 then dispossessed him from the land.

(3.) The plaintiff accordingly brought this suit (i) for a declaration that the 2 bighas appertain to his father's jama, (ii) for a declaration that he has a right to it and for possession of it, and (iii) for a declaration that he held the land under a jamai right under the defendant, Bipin Krishna Ray, that the crop for 1309 was raised by him and for a decree for Rs. 40 for the value of the crop of that year. The landlord defendant pleaded that the land appertained to a jama standing in the name of Bhairab Bagdi. The added defendant, Bipin Krishna Ray, i.e. the person to whom the plaintiff has sold the land, supported the plaintiffs case, maintaining that the jote in question was a transferable one, and that he not only sent the rent to the talukdar defendant, but also the mutation fees. The Munsif found that the jote was the plaintiff's jote, but was of a non-transferable character and that the plaintiff did not abandon the holding by selling the land to Bipin Krishna Ray and taking a lease under him. "The plaintiff was all along in possession," the Munsif says, "and therefore not liable to be ousted." "It is clear, I find from the evidence and circumstances of this case, that Bipin Krishna Ray tried to injure the maliks by a kobala, and the maliks took the land into their own hands, and ousted plaintiff from his lands, so both parties are to be blamed, and I do not allow costs to either. The ill-doing of the plaintiff in creating a new landlord is made up by the illegal acts of the malik defendant; so to avoid multiplicity of suits, I think, I may allow a relief to the plaintiff in this very suit. But I decide issues 4 and 5 against the plaintiff, and issue No. 6 in his favour."