Hari Narain Mozumdar v. Mukund Lal Mundal

This suit is one in which the Plaintiff, a putnidar, seeks to have transferred to him certain chowkidari chakran lands, which the Government has settled with the zemindar under Act VI of 1870. The lands are now subject to the payment of rent, and the zemindar has to pay the sum of Rs. 4-7-1½ annually to Government as revenue. The Plaintiff maintains that he is entitled to have the lands transferred to him on payment by him to the zemindar of what the zemindar has to pay to Government.

The land has been let to a tenant at an annual rental of Rs. 15-4.

The lower Court, after apparently giving the zemindar the power of electing between transferring the land to the Plaintiff on payment of a rent of Rs. 9-3 per annum, or of keeping the land and allowing the Plaintiff a deduction from his putni rent, has finally directed that the land be transferred to the Plaintiff subject to an annual payment of Rs. 9-3.

The Plaintiff appeals and urges that he is entitled to the lands subject to an annual payment of Rs. 4-7-1½.

We are, however, of opinion, that the decree of the District Judge is correct. Sec. 51 of the Act, while directing the transfer of the land to be made to the zemindar, distinctly saves contracts. Now the contract between the parties consists of the putni patta, printed at p. 18. From the terms of this patta, which extend to the whole of the zemindari except lakhiraj land, which the disputed land is not, and from the jamabundi at p. 21, and the details of the jirati chakran land, printed at p. 42, it is clear that under the contract between the parties the disputed land is part of the Plaintiff's putni. He is, therefore, entitled to possession, but not to khas possession of the lands. The tenant, who is a party to this appeal, is certainly entitled to retain actual possession of the lauds, of which he is and probably has been for many years a tenant.

But the contract between the parties, that is, the Plaintiff's putni lease contains no stipulation as to the rent payable by the putnidar for these lands to the zemindar. We think the rule of proportion followed by the District Judge is the right one, and that the Plaintiff is bound to pay to the zemindar such a rent for these lands, as corresponds to the proportion between the gross collections and the putni rent formerly payable by him. According to the District Judge's calculation, which is not impugned before us as incorrect, this comes to Rs. 9-3.

The tenant Defendant is therefore to retain direct possession of the lads and to pay Rs. 15-4 per annum to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is to collect Rs. 15-4 from the tenant Defendant and pay Rs. 9-3 to the zemindar. The zemindar is to collect Rs. 9-3 from the Plaintiff and to pay Rs. 4-7-1½ to the Government.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.

S.C.S

Appeal dismissed.