HARAN CHANDRA KARMAKAR Vs. KISHORI LAL GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the question arises in a proceeding before the Assistant Settlement Officer under Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act, The position is quite shortly this that the plaintiff has three causes of action. He puts forward a kabuliat as being the governing document of this tenancy and he asked first of all for Rs. 5 to be allowed because that sum of Rs. 5 was, on the basis of the terms of the kabuliat, a suspension of rent on account of 3 1/2 bighas of the holding being submerged under water at that time. He asked secondly for enhancement of rent because of rise in the price of the crops and he asked thirdly additional rent for additional area. There can be no doubt that the claim for Rs. 5 is a claim based upon the kabuliat ; that appears from the plaintiff's own claim before the Settlement Officer. The question of excess land is plainly a claim based upon the kabuliat not because he could not get it but for the kabuliat under the Bengal Tenancy Act but because it is immediately necessary to enquire exactly what land was then comprised within the kabuliat in order that one may know whether there has been an encroachment or not. The kabuliat contains the usual terms: Whenever you so desire at any future time you will measure the land and for the land thus found out on measurement you will be competent to settle the jama according to the rates prevailing for the different classes of land in the village....

(2.) Now in that kabuliat there was an interpolation: measurement of the land will be made in accordance with the terms of this kabuliat by a rasi of 80 cubits, 1 cubit being equal to 18 inches.

(3.) It all depends upon the standard of measurement employed at the time of this kabuliat, what area was included in it and the plaintiff when he had his claim put forward under this kabuliat insisted upon it being accepted as the term of the tenancy including the interpolation.