APURBA KRISHNA ROY Vs. SYAMA CHARAN PRAMANIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that an entry in the Record of Rights, stating that the plaintiff held the land in dispute under the defendant and that the land was liable to assessment of rent, is erroneous, the lands being nishkar (rent-free).

(2.) The Court of first instance held that the order of the Settlement Officer under Section 165 of the Bengal Tenancy Act operated as res judicata. That decision has been set aside on appeal by the learned Subordinate Judge, who remanded the suit for trial on the merits, As against that decision, the present appeal has been preferred by the defendants.

(3.) As stated above, in the Record of Rights the land was entered as Mal land liable to assessment of rent. After final publication of the Record of Rights, the landlords defendants in the present ease applied for settlement of fair and equitable rent under the provisions of Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The present plaintiff thereupon raised the objection that the land was not liable to assessment of rent, it being lakhraj. Several issues thereupon were framed, one of them being whether the land in suit is nishkar lakhraj property of the defendants, the defendants, however, did not produce any evidence and the Settlement Officer by his judgment, dated the 19th November 1913, assessed certain rent upon the land. The Settlement Officer in his judgment stated that the lands were recorded in the names of the defendants as tenants under the plaintiffs and noted as being liable to assessment of rent in the Record of Rights. He further said that the defendants had failed to produce any evidence after the framing of the issues and so the cases had been proceeded with ex parte.