Skip to content


Chandramoni Mohanti Vs. Manmatha Nath Mitter - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in5Ind.Cas.301
AppellantChandramoni Mohanti
RespondentManmatha Nath Mitter
Excerpt:
kabulyat to government - agreement to recognize rights of under-tenants as recorded, in settlement papers, effect of. - .....tenants as mentioned in the settlement papers. that being so, they are bound to recognize the rights recorded in favour of the defendant in this case in the settlement papers.3. the courts below were of opinion that if any rights had been erroneously recorded in the settlement papers, the plaintiffs would not be bound to recognize those rights. that would have been so, if the only ground for the recognition of their rights had been the real existence, of those rights, but in addition to that ground which always exists quite irrespective of the qabulyat executed by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs have further contracted with the government to recognize all the rights that have been recorded in favour of tenants in the settlement papers. that gives the rights recorded in the settlement.....
Judgment:

1. In this appeal which arises out of a, suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent to recover khas-possession of certain lands upon ejectment of the defendant, two points have been urged before us on behalf of the defendant-appellant, namely, first, that the Court of appeal below ought to have held that the suit was barred by limitation as it was brought more than one year after the date of order of the Settlement Officer which was virtually sought to be aside, and secondly, that the plaintiffs were bound by their qabulyat to recognise the right of the defendant as a recorded tenant.

2. We are of opinion that the second contention must succeed, and that it is, therefore, unnecessary to remand the case for the determination of the first, a remand which might otherwise have been necessary by reason of the materials on the record not being sufficient to enable us to determine it. The plaintiffs in paragraph 3 of the qabuliat executed by them in favour of the government stipulated that they would be bound to recognize the rights of the intermediate holders, subordinate intermediate, holders, raiyats, sikmi raiyats and other tenants as mentioned in the settlement papers. That being so, they are bound to recognize the rights recorded in favour of the defendant in this case in the settlement papers.

3. The Courts below were of opinion that if any rights had been erroneously recorded in the settlement papers, the plaintiffs would not be bound to recognize those rights. That would have been so, if the only ground for the recognition of their rights had been the real existence, of those rights, but in addition to that ground which always exists quite irrespective of the qabulyat executed by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs have further contracted with the Government to recognize all the rights that have been recorded in favour of tenants in the settlement papers. That gives the rights recorded in the settlement papers a basis quite independent of their real existence, namely, a basis on the footing of the contract entered into between the plaintiffs and their lessor, whereby, whatever the strength of the rights may be, after they have found a place in the record of the settlement papers, the plaintiffs are bound to recognize them.

4. That, being so, the plaintiffs are not entitled to eject the defendant, and the decree made in their favour must be set aside and this appeal decreed and the plaintiffs suit dismissed with costs in all the Courts.


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