SOMESHWAR NATH SINGH Vs. RAGHUBAND LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of two suits for rent, these being Suit No. 28 of 1932 in which the plaintiffs (Raghubans Lal and others) claim a twelve-annas rent from 1336 to 1339 Fasli and Suit No. 1101 of 1934 where the claim is by another co- sharer landlord for a six-annas share in the rent for 1340 and 1341 Fasli in respect of certain lands in village Ghangaila Daryapur. It appears that in mauza. Ghangaila Daryapur one Earn Khelawan Singh had a four annas dar-mukarrari interest and he also held 145 06 acres of land at an annual rental of Rs. 1377-4-9. This land was described in the Record of Rights as his tenure and part of it was in, his khas possession and recorded as bakasht and about 100 acres were in possession of tenants who paid either nakdi or bhaoli rent. Some time about 1926 Earn Khelawan sold the entire land to Someshwar Nath Singh and other members of his family who are the contesting defendants in the two suits. Earn Khelawan has also parted with his four-annas dar. mukarrari interest, but it is not clear to whom this interest has now passed. In each of the suits the plaintiffs are either mukarraridars or dar-mukarraridars of a six. annas interest only and the holders of the remaining interest have been impleaded as pro forma defendants.

(2.) The main defence in both the suits is that the plaintiffs are not entitled to realize the full rent inasmuch as owing to their omission to maintain the irrigation system in good order the lands of the village have greatly deteriorated in productive capacity. In Suit No. 28 of 1932 the contesting defendants have taken a further plea that the suit is not properly constituted, inasmuch as the rent and the area of the lands have not been correctly stated and because the plaintiffs have claimed a twelve-annas share in the total rent, although they are dar- mukarraridars of only a six-annas share in the village. It appears that there are two ahars in village Ghangaila Daryapur which are known as Purwari and Dangra ahars.

(3.) The defendants case is that by means of a pyne which connects these ahars with a small river named Sinane, water used to be brought and stored in these two ahars and then distributed to the lands of various tenants including the defendants for the purpose of irrigation. According to the fard-e-ab-pashi (Ex. E) filed in Suit No. 28 of 1932, the two ahars "are to be repaired by the mukarraridars and dar-mukarraridars of the village" and a Comissioner who was deputed to make a local investigation has reported that these two ahars have not been repaired for a considerable time with the result that no water can now accumulate in Dangra ahar and the entire water which comes into it is drained off by means of a nala recently formed.