DHANANJOY MANJHI Vs. UPENDRANATH DEB SARBHADIKARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in the suit and the appellant before us is a landlord and the defendant No. 1 is a tenure-holder in respect of two plots of land within the ambit of the plaintiff s estate. In a Record of Rights published in the year 1910, the land was entered as liable to be assessed with rent (jamajogya). The suit was brought for the purpose of having rent assessed and the defence of the defendant No. 1 is that the land is held rent-free.

(2.) The plaintiff, however, is not the sole land lord. His own case is that the land is situated in a Mauza of which an undivided half appertains to estate No. 1818 and the other half is revenue-free. He claims to be the sole proprietor of estate No. 1818 and to be the owner of a ten-annas share of the moiety of the village held free of revenue. He has made party defendants to the suit the proprietors of the remaining six-annas share of the revenue-free title.

(3.) In the trial Court the Munsif framed five issues, of which the second, third and fourth are as follows: (2) Can the plaintiff alone maintain the suit? Can the suit as framed proceed? (3) Is the suit barred by limitation? (4) Is the plaint land liable to be assessed with rent? If so, what would be the fair rent payable for the land to the plaintiff?