SITIKANTA ROY Vs. BIPRADAS CHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff in a suit in ejectment. The land in question is situated in Ghat Chota Bankadaha in the district of Bankura and was formerly Ghatwali land. It was resumed by the Government in or about the year 1900 and transferred to the Maharaja of Burdwan as Zemindar or proprietor. The Maharaja then in July 1908 granted a Mokarari lease of the land to the former Ghatwal, Thakur Das Laik, who thus ceased to be a Ghatwal and became an ordinary tenure-holder. Subsequently, but before the expiration of 12 years from the date of the resumption, the tenure was put up for sale in execution of a decree for arrears of rent obtained by the Maharaja against Thakur Das and the plaintiff became the purchaser. The defendants in the suit (Bipradas Charan and others, called the Charans) held the lands as cultivating tenants under Thakur Das both before and after he (teased to be a Ghatwal. Upon their resisting the plaintiffs attempt to obtain actual possession, the plaintiff caused notices to be served upon them under Section 167 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, purporting to annul their interests as being incumbrances within the meaning of Section 161. Having done so, he brought the present suit to eject them. Their case is that being occupancy Raiyats, their interests are "protected" interests.

(2.) It should be mentioned that, so far as I can gather from the somewhat confused statement of the Court below, the land to which the appeal relates forms part of a larger area which before resumption by Government was held in common by nine Ghatwals and a Shadial. The share of the Shadial was six annas and the share of each Ghatwal one-ninth of ten annas. The defendants were tenants-in-common of a holding under the Ghatwals and Shadial which comprised an area of between 600 and 800 bighas. After the resumption the Maharaja granted to each Ghatwal and the Shadial a separate Mokarari lease of his share, but the land was not divided. Each Ghatwal thus came to hold his one-ninth undivided share of ten annas of the whole as a separate tenure. The defendants also continued in joint possession of their holding, but as to the rent payable in respect of it. Thakur Das collected his share separately. It may be assumed in the present case that the defendants held a separate tenancy under Thakur Das to the extent of his share, whatever that share may be.

(3.) The District Judge in the lower Appellate Court has found that at the date of the suit the defendants and their ancestors had been in possession of this holding as cultivating tenants for about a hundred years at an unvaried rent of Rs. 33 odd per annum.