GOLAPDI MEAH Vs. PURNA CHANDRA DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have read the judgment prepared by my brother Walmsley and concur in it. On the question of the extents of the karta s authority which is raised, I had little doubt during the argument, that the karta of a joint Hindu family has authority to consent on behalf of the joint family to the transfer of an occupancy holding, held they the tenants under the joint family as landlords and not transferable without their consent duly given by themselves or oh their behalf. Walmsley, J.

(2.) This is an appeal by defendants Nos. 2 to 7 against a judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Fridpur, who reversed the decision of the first Court and decreed the plaintiffs suit. The circumstances are as follows. The Dutt family, to which the plaintiffs belong, hold a certain tenure, and within that tenure the land in suit was let out to two tenants named Dinu and Menajuddin in 1878. Their interest was that of occupancy raiyats, without the right of transfer, except with the consent of their landlords. The Dutt family consisted of three brothers,--- Khudiram, Mohesh and Kodai. Plaintiff No. 1, Purna, is the son of Kodai, and plaintiff No. 2, Soshti, is the son of Mohesh, Khudiram had three sons, Kali Charan, Ram Charan, and Soshi Mohan. Kali Charan is defendant No. 8 and Soshi Mohan is defendant No. 9. Kali Charan s wife is Joy Durga Sundari Dasi, defendant No. 1. Sometime before 1900 Dinu and Menajuddin borrowed money from Joy Durga and mortgaged the holding to her. She brought a suit on the mortgage, and in execution of the decree she caused the holding to be put up for sale, and then bought it herself on November 24, 1900. She was put in possession in the following year. On November 29, 1900, she let out the land lo the defendants Nos. 2 to 7, now the appellants, and they paid her a bonus of Rs. 700. On November 26, 1912, Purna instituted the present suit for recovery of khas possession to the extent of his one-third share, and his cousin Soshi subsequently joined him as plaintiff. Joy Durga filed one written statement, and defendants Nos. 2 to 7 another, but Joy Durga has not joined in the present appeal.

(3.) The learned Munsif found that Joy Durga had changed sides after filing her written statement, and on the merits of the case he held that the mortgage to Joy Durga was effected with the consent of the plaintiffs and their co-sharers, that Soshi Mohan Dutt was karta of the family, and that he actually conducted the mortgage suit on behalf of Joy Durga, and consented to her purchase of the holding at the auction sale, that Joy Durga was recognized by the plaintiffs and in particular by Soshi Mohan, the karta, as their tenant, and that she held possession of the land for several years through her bargaits, and latterly through the defendants Nos. 2 to 7, and that these defendants took settlement from her in good faith and paid her Rs. 700 as nazarana. He also held that apart from the landlord s recognition of Joy Durga, the defendants were entitled to retain possession on the double ground that they are settled raiyats of the village, and that they took settlement from Joy Durga in good faith, believing her to be entitled to admit them to the land.