Skip to content


Midnapore Zamindary Company, Limited Vs. Jagat Chandra Dobey and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in76Ind.Cas.990
AppellantMidnapore Zamindary Company, Limited
RespondentJagat Chandra Dobey and ors.
Cases ReferredSharoda Soondari Debia v. Gonee Sheik
Excerpt:
landlord and tenant - mukarrari, tenure-holder--right to cut trees. - .....j.1. this appeal is preferred by the plantiffs landlords and the question raised is whether the tenure-holders have a right to cut trees from the land comprised in the tenure. as to the status of the tenure-holders, the findings of the lower-courts are that they are permanent tenute-holders at a fixed rate of rent. the correctness of these findings has been challenged but, in my opinion, without success. the pattah has been placed before us and although it does not say specificially that the rent is fixed in perpetuity, it appears to convey that meaning and, it contains nothing to convey a contrary impression. the judge also points out that in the record of rights the tenure has been described as mukarrari and he says that, in his judgment, the presumption has not been rebutted. i.....
Judgment:

Walmsley, J.

1. This appeal is preferred by the plantiffs landlords and the question raised is whether the tenure-holders have a right to cut trees from the land comprised in the tenure. As to the status of the tenure-holders, the findings of the lower-Courts are that they are permanent tenute-holders at a fixed rate of rent. The correctness of these findings has been challenged but, in my opinion, without success. The pattah has been placed before us and although it does not say specificially that the rent is fixed in perpetuity, it appears to convey that meaning and, it contains nothing to convey a contrary impression. The Judge also points out that in the Record of Rights the tenure has been described as Mukarrari and he says that, in his judgment, the presumption has not been rebutted. I take it therefore, that the tenures are permanent and that the rate of rent is fixed. Then, the question is whether as Mukarrari tenure-holders the defendants have a right to cut trees. In the first place, it has been found by both the Courts below that for many years, that is to say, ever since the creation of the tenancy, the tenure-holders have been in the habit of cutting trees. Dispute arose between the parties and on one occasion the landlords' interference was the subject of a prosecution in the Criminal Court. Apart from this evidence as to what the tenure-holders have done by virtue of their position as tenure-holders, it appears to me that the question as to the right to cut trees has been settled. It was discussed as affecting raiyats holding at fixed rates in the case of Radhika Nath Roy v. Samir Fakir 38 Ind. Cas. 49 : 21 C.W.N. 636 and, in that decision reference was made to the decision of Sharoda Soondari Debia v. Gonee Sheik 10 W.R. 419. I am not prepared to agree with the learned Counsel for the landlords in his contention that the recent decisions of the Privy Council as regards' the Subsoil rights affect the principle on which the case of Sharoda Soondari Debia v. Gonee Sheik 10 W.R. 419 was decided. In my judgment, the Courts below are right and this appeal must be dismissed with costs.

Sahrawardy, J.

2. I agree.


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