MAHIM CHANDRA BANIKYA Vs. KARAMALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiffs and arises out of a suit commenced by them for recovery of rent in kind for the years 1328 to 1331 B.S.

(2.) The defence of defendant 2 to the suit is that there ought to be a suspension of rent as he has been dispossessed from a portion of the holding by some of the landlords. The Munsif who tried the suit disbelieved the story of dispossession and gave judgment for the plaintiffs. On appeal the lower appellate Court remanded the suit so far as it relates to the claim in respect of the years 1329-31, for fresh trial after a local enquiry by a Commissioner, as to whether any part of C.S. dag 1086 has been in possession of the plaintiffs or their cosharers, as alleged by defendant 2.

(3.) A Pleader Commissioner was appointed to investigate if the plaintiffs had encroached on a portion of the holding and he found that the tenant defendants have been dispossessed from 1 katha 1 dhur out of their holding; the Commissioner also found that the defendants dispossessed the plaintiffs from a portion of their own land. The Munsif after remand held that there had been a dispossession of the defendants from a very small area and he decreed the suit in part.