Special Appeal from a decree passed by the Judge of Moorshedabad, reversing that of the Moonsiff of Berhampore.
This was a suit for contribution. Three mehals, Jorior, ??? and Durgapur, formed a zemindary belonging to a person named Roy. On the 28th of September 1865, Roy granted a putnee of Mahal Durgapnr to the defendant Jogut Chunder. Shortly afterwards, in execution of a decree against Roy, Durgapur was sold and purchased by one Ram Das, who ??? it to the plaintiff on the 28th of January 1873. Previously to the latter sale, namely, on the 17th of April 1872, the plaintiff had purchased from the Roys all their remaining interest in the ??? and, on the 30th of June 1876, the present suit was ??? for the purpose of obtaining contribution, plaintiffs having paid the Government revenue for the whole zemindary. Defendant, who had paid no putnee rent since his purchase from Ram Das, alleged that he was not zemindar, but putneedar; that ??? he nor his vendor ever took up this purchase, and that ??? declines to do so; and that he would have been willing to ??? the putnee rent had it been demanded from him. [No ??? appears to have been made on the defendant personally.] ??? The Court of First Instance gave plaintiff a decree which was ??? on appeal. Plaintiff then specially appealed.
Baboo Mohini Mohun Roy, and Baboo Taruck Nath Sen, for Appellant.
Baboo Kali Kissen Sen, for Respondent.
The judgment of the High Court (1) was delivered by
Markby, J.:— We think that the judgment of the District Judge in this is wrong. It appears that there were certain villages for one estate, and that the defendant took a putnee of one of villages in 1272, and paid his rent to the then zemindary Roys. Subsequently, in execution against the Boys, their ??? rights in this village were sold to one Ram Das, who it to the defendant, that is, the putneedar himself, on the Bysack 1279, and from that date no putnee rent was paid.
Upon these facts it appears to us that the only ??? inference is that, not only did the defendant purchase the ??? right, but that he became possessed of it, and ??? he is a co-sharer with the plaintiffs in this zemindary quite true that the plaintiffs subsequently purchased the ??? interest of the Boys in this zemindary, but that ??? possibly interfere with the previous purchase made by ??? Ram Das asserted his previous purchase by selling to ??? defendant, and it is not possible for the defendant now to ??? not having paid any putnee rent since his purchase, that not the zemindar.
The decree of the Moonsiff is right and must be restored costs. The appellants will also get their costs in this ??? and the lower Appellate Court.