Skip to content


Chand Behari Lal and ors. Vs. Nannua and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in63Ind.Cas.222
AppellantChand Behari Lal and ors.
RespondentNannua and ors.
Excerpt:
u.p. land revenue act (iii of 1901), section 56 - cess--payment in kind by occupancy tenant over and above rent--payment not recorded by settlement recording officer--suit to recover money value of such payment, whether maintainable. - .....above their rent, namely, a head load of bhusa and a bundle of fodder each year, according to a custom recorded in the wajib-ul-arz of 1871. the suit was resisted on various grounds, among others that no such sustain existed. the learned munsif decreed the suit. on appeal the second additional judge allowed the appeal he held that these payments in kind were a seas within the meaning of section 56 of the land revenue act (local act iii of 1901) and that as they had not been recorded by the recording officer at the last settlement, they could not under the terms of that section be recovered in a civil or revenue court. he, therefore, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.2. the plaintiffs some here in second appeal and they argue that this payment is not a cess within the meaning.....
Judgment:

1. The facts out of which this appeal arisen as follows: The plaintiffs are the Zemindars of the village and brought this suit against certain occupancy tenants to recover annas ten, which they say was the money value of a payment which the tenants had to make over and above their rent, namely, a head load of bhusa and a bundle of fodder each year, according to a custom recorded in the wajib-ul-arz of 1871. The suit was resisted on various grounds, among others that no such sustain existed. The learned Munsif decreed the suit. On appeal the Second Additional Judge allowed the appeal He held that these payments in kind were a seas within the meaning of Section 56 of the Land Revenue Act (Local Act III of 1901) and that as they had not been recorded by the Recording Officer at the last Settlement, they could not under the terms of that section be recovered in a Civil or Revenue Court. He, therefore, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.

2. The plaintiffs some here in second appeal and they argue that this payment is not a cess within the meaning of the Land Revenue Act but something payable to the Zemindars under a custom such as might be included in the term 'Rasum Zemindari.' The suit was brought in the Court of the Munsif. It is, therefore, clear that the plaintiffs did not treat it as rent. They rely ou the Full Bench ruling of Muhammad Faiyaz Ali


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //