HERBERT MANNERS Vs. CHATTER MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in this suit allege that they are ticcadars of two estates bearing Touzi Nos. 5672 and 5674, and of a moiety of another bearing Touzi No. 5518 in Mouzah Charo under a lease bearing date the 15 December 1901. The lease, it is stated, took effect retrospectively from 1307 Fusli, that is to say from 1900. Prior to the plaintiffs taking this lease the whole of the Kilas Nos. 5672 and 5674 and half of Kita No. 5518 were under lease to Digambur Singh from 1284 to 1291. He sublet them to the Jitwarpur Factory, of which the Almasnugger Indigo Factory was an outwork under a registered Katkena lease dated the 19 October 1876. The lease to the Factory ran up to the end of Digambur's lease, namely to 1891. On the expiry of that lease the defendant 2nd party and his mother who were the landlords gave a lease of certain properties including these three at present in, suit to defendants 1 party the proprietors of the Almasnugger Factory, on the 19 of October 1884, for 15 years, running up to September 1899.

(2.) The case for the plaintiffs was that the defendants 1 party took possession of 33 bighas, 17 cottahs, and 2 1/2 dhoors of land in the three estates and cultivated indigo in them during the period of their lease, and in the survey papers of 1305 to 1306 Fusli these lands were entered as zerait lands in possession of the ticcadars, defendants 1 party. The defendants 1 party were bound by the terms of the lease to give up on its expiry all lands occupied by them on which they were cultivating indigo, but in spite of that condition the defendants 1st party have remained in possession of the 33 bighas odd of land up to the date of suit. The plaintiffs, as lessees from the landlord of the three properties, claimed to be entitled, to obtain possession of these 33 bighas odd of land from defendants 1 party, on the allegation that they were zerait lands. The suit was brought to recover possession and for mesne profits.

(3.) The defence of the defendants 1 party was that the plaintiffs were not entitled to eject them without a proper notice. They admitted holding the lands in suit, but alleged that those lands had never formed the maliks khudkasht. They alleged that they had been in possession of the lands for over 12 years as tenants, and so had acquired rights of occupancy, and they had been entered as tenants with such rights in the survey papers, and, therefore, the plaintiffs, were not entitled to eject them. They further alleged that as regards 2 bighas 2 cotthas and 3 dhoors of land mentioned in the plaint, the land was in possession of Ramrup Mahton, plaintiff No. 17, as their sub-tenant, his father having sold his occupancy holding consisting of 6 bighas odd to them, defendants 1 party, and they having subsequently sublet the 2 bighas odd to Ramrup Mahton.