Nunda Lal Gossami And Others v. Atarmoni Dassi And Others

Maclean, C.J:— The question in this case arises as to the apportionment of certain money awarded for compulsory purchase of land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. It is the old struggle between the zemindar on the one hand, and the tenant on the other. The real question is this, whether the Court below was right in presuming, in the circumstances I am about to state, that the tenure of one Bissumbar Sen, who is long since dead, was of a permanent nature. The origin of the tenure is lost in obscurity, and we do not know what it was. But it appears that one Bissumbar Sen had been holding the land as a tenant at a rent of Rs. 54 odd. It appears from the evidence in the case that ever since the death of Bissumbar which apparently Occurred some 55 years ago, his son Sreenath Sen, who then by inheritance held the property, had been paying the same rent, and after his death, his widow, a party to the present proceedings, Sreemati Atarmoni Dassi, has been paying the same rent. The result, therefore, is that for a period of some 55 years, the evidence shows, the same rent has been paid. It appears that on the 10th of November 1873, Sreenath Sen gave a mourasi mokurari puttah of the land to the Champdani Jute Mills Co., who are the Respondents on the present appeal, at an enhanced rent of Rs. 102 per annum. It also appears that the value of the land has gone up very much and, upon the evidence of the Appellants' own witnesses, the value of the whole land included in the tenure is now seven-thousand rupees, instead of Rs. 54, a year. It is equally clear that no steps have been taken by the landlord either to evict Bissumbar Sen or those holding under him, or to enhance the rent of the tenure. In these circumstances was not the Court right in holding that a presumption arose that the tenure was of a permanent nature 1 It is not disputed that sec. 50 of the Bengal Tenancy Act does not apply to questions which arise in proceedings of this nature: but it is said, and I think properly said, that the principle involved in that section is a useful guide to the Courts in matters of this nature. I do not put it higher than that. But this is clear that if the zemindar had brought an action, either to evict or to enhance, on the ground that the tenure was not a permanent one, the Defendants, the tenure-holders could then have claimed, and successfully, the benefit of sec. 50 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and it is probable that for that reason, notwithstanding the great rise in the value of the land the zemindar has not brought any suit of that nature. In these circumstances, is not the Court justified in presuming that the tenure was permanent? There is nothing on the part of the landlord to show what was the nature of the tenure in its inception: and, I have stated all the facts which we have before us. On these facts, I think the view taken by the Court below is right, and the presumption has not been rebutted that the tenure is permanent.

The result is that the appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs, two sets of hearing fee, for Respondents Finlay Muir & Co., four gold mohurs, and for Respondent Atarmoni two gold mohurs.

Coxe, J.— I agree.

N.G

Appeal dismissed.