BAIKUNTHA CHANDRA NAG Vs. CHANDRA NATH BANDOPADHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit which has given rise to this appeal was instituted so far back as the year 1920. When originally instituted it was a simple suit in which the plaintiffs asked for khas possession of an 8 auuas share of some lands on the ground that the plaintiffs were 8 annas patnidars and one Ram Charan Mandal who held the lands under them in non-transferable occupancy right at an annual jama of Rs. 3 made an unauthorized sale thereof in favour of the defendants and abandoned possession in their favour. The lands were described in the plaint as survey plots 1320 and 1348 and a half of survey plot 1321. The defendants pleaded that Ram Charan had permanent and transferable rights to the lands and that they themselves had acquired rights of occupancy having been recognized by the plaintiffs predecessors and also by the plaintiffs themselves.

(2.) The trial Court held that Ram Charan had no permanent or transferable rights and that the defendants had not been recognized by the plaintiffs or their predecessors. There was a contention raised that the disputed, lands did not constitute an entire holding but were part of a holding which belonged jointly to two brothers Ram Charan and Guru Charan. This contention was not definitely disposed of by the trial Court but it observed that there was evidence to show that the mudafat of Ram Charan was separate from the mudafat of Guru Charan, and held that in any case there was abandonment of the lands by Ram Charan and his family after the transfer. The trial Court decreed the suit.

(3.) There was an appeal by the defendants. From the judgment of the Additional District Judge who dealt with the appeal it appears that the position that the defendants, as appellants, took up before him, was that the homestead of Guru Charan, and a share of a certain tank and the disputed lands formed one holding, and that the defendants after their purchase of Guru Charan's share in 1314 and Ram Charan's share in 1315 had been recognized by the landlords and so were protected from eviction. The Additional District Judge held against the defendants so far as transferability and recognition were concerned. On the other questions that arose he observed: So from the materials on the record which are not consistent I can only say that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the dispute lands appertained to one jama of Rs. 3 in the name of Ram Charan Mandal; and the defendants have also failed to establish satisfactorily that Guru Charan's lands and Rim Charan's lands formed one holding, and none proves what was the jumma payable for the same.