RAM CHANDRA MAHTON Vs. RAM GULAM MAHTON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an action for rent. The Judge in the Court below has held that the action was not maintainable as it was with regard to a part of the holding only.

(2.) The short facts so far as this matter is concerned are these: that there were three branches of a family represented by Pariyag, Kameswar and Pargash. Pariyag separated from the others and the defendants in this case represent the two remaining branches of the family. The plaintiffs supported their action by contending that after the separation to which I have just referred, there was a splitting up of the holding. The Judge of the trial Court came to the conclusion, which he seemed to think was inevitable in the circumstances, that the holding had been split up. It would have been difficult to have resisted the conclusion of the trial Court had the case been somewhat different. But the position in this action was that the 15 annas proprietors were suing the branches of the family to which I have referred and the one anna proprietor was joined as a pro forma defendant. If the 16 annas proprietors had agreed that the holding had been split up and evidence existed, to which the Judge of the trial Court referred, of payments made and accepted as regards what appears to have been a part of the holding, I repeat myself, it would have been difficult to resist the conclusion that there had in fact been a splitting up.

(3.) Now, in my judgment the finding of the Judge in appeal is conclusive so far as I am concerned, because he was treating with evidence which certainly might have been evidence of splitting up of the holding which was not conclusive nor was it an inference of law to be drawn from the facts.