SHAM LAL MITTAR Vs. ROBERT WATSON AND COMPANYTL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Plaintiff in this suit and Respondent in the appeal is a tenant of two mouzahs, named Kuilibadi and Gilabani, under the Defendants and Appellants, who are putnidars of pergunnah Bogri. The principal object of the suit was to obtain a declaration that the Plaintiff is not bound by two decrees for enhancement of the rent of those mouzahs obtained in January, 1861, against Srimati Haimabati and Srimati Peari Dasi, and by kabuliyats given by Srimati Haimabati to the putnidars in January, 1867. The Plaintiff also asked for a declaration that the mouzahs were not liable to have the rent enhanced, and that the Defendants might be required to refund to him the sum of Rs. 7800 1. 5. gundahs, the amount paid by him to prevent the sale of the mouzahs, in execution of decrees obtained by the Defendants against Srimati Haimabati. It has been found by both the lower Courts that the mouzahs were liable to an enhanced rent, and so that question is no longer in dispute.

(2.) THE mouzahs were originally held by Jaggut Mundal Saontal and Soonder Mundal Saontal, and by a succession of transfers they came into the possession of Kasinath Ghose. He on the 17th of September, 1850, sold one moiety of them to the Plaintiffs father, Gopinath Mitter, and about the same time made a gift of the other moiety to his wife, Srimati Peari Dasi, Gopinath died in October, 1858, leaving his widow Haimabati, who on the 10th of May, 1859, gave birth to the Plaintiff. On the death of Gopinath, Haimabati appears to have entered into possession of his estate, and to have been recognised by the Defendants as tenant. On the 16th of May, 1859, immediately after the birth of the Plaintiff, the Defendants caused notices of enhancement to be served upon Haimabati Dasi and Peari Dasi, and on the 17th of June, 1859, they instituted two suits against them for enhancement of rent, one as to each mouzah. On the 18th of November, 1860, whilst the suits were pending, Peari Dasi sold her moiety to Haimabati, who is described in the deed of sale as "mother and guardian of Sham Lal Mitter, minor," and it is apparent from the deed that the purchase was made on his behalf. No change, however, was made in the suits.

(3.) THE Plaintiff attained his majority on the 10th of May, 1877. On the 16th of July, 1877, he deposited in Court Rs. 35. 1. 15. gundahs for rent of Gilabani, the Defendants having refused to take it, and on the 19th of January, 1878, the Defendants presented a petition, in which they stated that the name of Sliam Lal Mitter was not registered in their serishta, and he was not a tenant of Gilabani mouzah; that Haimabati Dasi held under them 3579 bighas 17 cottahs 8 chittacks of land in Gilabani mouzah on an annual rental of Rs. 946. 13. 13. 2 cowries, and the name of Haimabati was registered in their serishta, and therefore they were not bound to take the money in deposit. About this time they appear to have brought suits against Haimabati for arrears of rent. They are numbered 2 and 3 of 1878, but the date of the filing of the plaints does not appear in the record of proceedings.