MAINA SAHU Vs. MAHANTH BALAK DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-respondent sued to eject the defendant from a piece of homestead land which was settled with the defendant by the predecessor of the plaintiff in 1928. The land belongs to a Thakurbari in Patna and the lessor was, at the time of the settlement, the mohunt of the Thakurbari, who was subsequently removed and was succeeded by the present mohunt.

(2.) On the land in dispute the defendant has erected a pucca house. His defence to the action was that he was a permanent lessee and had paid Rs. 250 as salami for the land. The lower Appellate Court has found that there was a verbal agreement for a permanent lease and that Rs. 250 was paid by the defendant to the predecessor of the plaintiff as salami. The Courts below however have agreed in dismissing the suit on the ground that the lease being merely an oral one is unenforceable in law.

(3.) In second appeal by the defendant, it is contended that in equity the plaintiff should be restrained from ejecting the defendant; although it is admitted that apart from considerations of equity the defendant is not entitled to retain possession of the land for want of a properly registered lease. A similar argument was advanced in Ariff V/s. Jadunath Majumdar A.I.R.1931. P.C. 79 which was decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That also was a case in which the owner of land sought to eject the defendant who claimed a permanent lease not evidenced by a document.