JARIP SARDAR Vs. JOGENDRA NATH CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants Nos. 3 to 6 are the appellants before us. The plaintiff brought his suit for a declaration that defendants Nos. 1 to 3 have no ganti interest in the disputed Mehal, that the entry in the Record of Rights was incorrect and that such entry, so far a it recognises the existence of a ganti right in the names of defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and the predecessors of defendants Nos. 4 to 7, may be ordered to be expunged. He made other prayers in the plaint to which it is unnecessary to refer.

(2.) The facts of the ease are set forth in the judgment of the Court below and need only be briefly stated. It appears that the Mehal in respect of which the suit is instituted was settled for a term of years with one Prannath Dhar. Prannath had created a ganti interest in favour of some of the defendants or their predecessors. His interest in the Mehal was sold on the 10th January 1906 by reason of his default in payment of Government revenue and was purchased by the plaintiff in the present suit.

(3.) It appears that shortly after the plaintiff s purchase on the 23rd June 1906, the Settlement Officer settled the rent payable for the Mehal and the settlement was made on the basis of the rent payable by the gantidars. The settlement holder, that is, the plaintiff in this suit, executed a kabuliyat in the year 1908 and in that kabuliyat he agreed to respect the recorded rights possessed by the under-tenure-holders, rights of the village headman and Ors. in the said estate. It cannot be denied that the right of the gantidars was a right that was at the time recorded.