BHAGWAT PRASAD Vs. SUDERSAN BHAGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal under Section 224, Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, from the appellate order of the Judicial Commissioner made under Section 215 (3) of the Act. On May 10, 1895, the zamindar of Palganj granted a thika of Mouza Manjhiladih for a term of 47 years to two brothers, Kali Charan Bhagat and Ram Prasad Bhagat at annual rent with cesses of Rs. 115 4-0. When the Record of Rights was prepared in 1915 the tenure was in possession of Ram Prasad Bhagat and the widow of Kali Charan, holding equal shares in severality, for which separate khewats were prepared, with a shamilat khewat for lands which were then waste which bad not been divided. Under Section 13, Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, the landlord was not obliged to recognize the sub-division of the tenure and it would appear that in 1915 no such recognition had been made.

(2.) In 1931 the landlord jointly sued Sudersan Bhagat and his brothers, sons of Ram Prasad Bhagat with Musammat Mankumari, widow of Kali Charan Bhagat, for the rent of the tenure. Budersan Bhagat defended the suit, denying that he was liable for more than half the rent and alleging that he had paid Rs. 5-7-10-0 for his half share of the tenure to the landlord. That suit did not reach the stage of decree as the claim was settled out of Court. In 1933 the landlord sued Sudersan Bhagat and Musammat Mankumari separately for their shares in a collective suit under Section 140, Chota Naupur Tenancy Act, when it appears that Musammat Mankumari in respect of her share was in arrears for only one kist of 1340 Fasli to the extent of Rs. 26-13-0 while Sudersan Bhagat was in arrears for the whole of 1339 and a kist of 1340, so that the total claim against him was Rs. 87-7-0. The suit was decreed and it appears that in due course the landlord's claim was satisfied.

(3.) In 1935 the landlord again sued the pattidars separately for arrears of rent and in execution of his decree against Musammat Mankumari he brought to sale her patti which was described in khewat No. 2-2 of the Record of Rights. The sale was confirmed on October 31, 1935. On December 10, Sudersan Bhagat preferred an objection under Section 214. Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, on the ground that he should have been a necessary party to the proceeding. The objection was disallowed by the Deputy Collector who found no substance in it. Sudersan Bhagat appealed to the Judicial Commissioner who allowed the appeal and set aside the sale. The learned Judicial Commissioner remarked that there was no documentary evidence of division of the tenure and that the half share had been sold for an inadequate price to the detriment of the appellant whose reversionary interest had thus been destroyed.