RAJANI KANTA BANERJEE Vs. RAJ KUMARI DASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a case in which the plaintiffs sued for ejectment after service of a notice to quit. The Munsif did not try any issue except the issue whether the plaintiffs were estopped from bringing the suit for khas possession. The lower appellate Court dealt with the same question only.

(2.) The facts are shortly these: That the father of the defendants sold the suit land and certain other lands forming a jama to the plaintiffs predecessors. The latter got possession of all the lands except the lands now in question. Thereupon it is said that after the expiry of 12 years the plaintiffs brought a suit for recovery of these very lands against the defendants father. That suit was settled by a solenama and the effect of the solenama was that the defendants father admitted the right of the plaintiffs to get possession of these lands but it was agreed that the defendants father should be a tenant to the plaintiffs at a Certain rent permanently. In that suit it may be mentioned that the claim of the plaintiffs was first of all for khas possession and, in the alternative, if that was not granted to them, for rent from the defendants father. Now, in the present suit, the solenama containing the promise of the plaintiffs to let the defendants have these lands as tenants permanently, is set up as an answer to the plaintiffs claim for khas possession and the learned vakil on behalf of the plaintiffs says that that solenama does not afford a defence because it was not registered as required by Section 17(d), Registration Act.

(3.) The first question, therefore, is whether that solenama requires registration as being a lease. There can be no doubt that the intention of it was to operate as the grant of a tenancy to take effect at once and in my judgment there is no escape from the conclusion that it was a lease. That being so there is no escape from the further conclusion that it is not exempt as being an order or a decree of the Court, from the requirement of registration because that requirement is only foregone on the face of Section 17, Registration Act, in cases coming within Clauses (b) and (c), Sub-section (1), Section 17. This was clearly held by the Privy Council in the judgment delivered by Lord Buckmaster in the case of Hemanta Kumari Debt v. Midnapur Zemindary Co. A.I.R. 1919 P.C. 79.