THAKUR RAI Vs. ISSARDYAL PARSHAD ADN ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises a question as to the meaning of the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Mukerjee Official Receiver V/s. Mt. Ramratan Kuer where their Lordships opinion expressed by Sir George Rankin was in these words: The object of this Section (referring to Section 26-N, Bihar Tenancy Act), can only be to quiet titles which are more than ten years old, and to ensure that if during those ten years the transferee has not been ejected he shall have the right to remain on the land.

(2.) The appeal here arises by reason of the plaintiff's action against his landlord for a declaration as to his right to possession and as regards a decree obtained by the landlord in Execution Case No. 330 of 1932, in pursuance of which the landlord claims to have purchased the holding, the subject, matter of this suit.

(3.) The facts are that in 1913 there was a transfer of a part of the holding to the plaintiff which according to the plaintiff's case was recognized by the landlord, and it is on the footing of that recognition and also on the footing that the decree out of which the execution case arose was not a rent decree but a money decree inasmuch as the landlord had not joined in that action all the recorded tenants, that the case was argued. Both these questions appear to have been decided by the Courts below against the plaintiff, but the contention in this Court is that Section 26(N), Bihar Tenancy Act, applies and on that footing he is entitled to the declaration which he claims. The first contention advanced on behalf of the plaintiff is that the Judge is wrong in law in placing the onus upon him (the appellant) for showing that all the recorded tenants were made parties to the action of 1931. But the learned Judge in the Court below has dealt with the evidence and has come to the conclusion on the evidence largely of the defendants that the recorded tenants were joined. That point therefore fails.