MUNSHI EMADUDDIN CHOWDHURY Vs. DANESH MAMUD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a decision of the learned District Judge of Rungpore, dated the 8th April 1915, reversing the decision of the Munsif of the same place. The suit was brought for ejectment. The right of suit was based on a kabuliyat the term of which had expired. The kabuliyat, a translation of which is before us, is the sole document which has been referred to in this case. Under the kabvliyat, it is stated in the argument, that it is admitted by defendant No. 1 that his right is that of an under-ryot within the meaning of the Bengal Tenancy Act. That depends on what the meaning of the words "korfa ryot" is Personally I do not know the Bengali language; but the learned gentlemen, who appear in this case, and my learned brother, who is sitting with me, say that the words "korfa ryot" do not necessarily mean an "under-ryot" but may mean a ryot under a tenure-holder or some other person. If that is so, it seems to me to be quite clear that the learned Judge in the Court of Appeal below rightly placed the onus on the plaintiff, because in this case the question of onus seems to be the only question in the appeal, If the onus has been rightly placed, the appeal cannot succeed having regard to the view that the learned Judge has taken on the facts proved before him. I accept the statement that "korfa ryot" does not necessarily mean a ryot holding under a ryot but is consistent with the other view that it may be a ryot holding under some person other than a ryot. In that view of the case, this appeal must fail and be dismissed with costs. Richardson, J.

(2.) I agree.

(3.) It is not necessary to define the term "korfa ryot. " The kabuliyat speaks of the defendants as having a "korfa right". When such a right is subordinate to a jote, the question whether the tenant is a ryot or an under-ryot must depend on the character of the jote.