The entire argument in support of the appeal was that the raiyati interest companytinued to exist inspite of the acquisition of the landlords interest by the sole raiyat, Santokhi, and the subsequent entry in the settlement records showed that the lands were Bakasht Malik.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated April 27, 1956, of the Patna High Court in L. P. A. No.
The learned judge Banerjee, J. who heard the appeal, was of opinion that there was numberconflict between the several entries in the record of rights the first of which showed the lands as held by Santokhi as the raiyat while the later settlement records showed lands as Bakasht Malik and that in law the raiyati interest companytinued even after the raiyat acquired the superior landlords interest.
Accordingly he allowed the appeal, holding that the sale was void with regard to the raiyati interest.
443 of 1959.
Some time after he became a raiyat of this land, Santokhi purchased by a registered deed the entire interest of the Lakhirajdar under whom he was the raiyat.
On May 15, 1935, these lands were sold by the 2nd party defendants and others including the plaintiffs 1 to 6, to the present appellants.
The Letters Patent Appeal by the defendants 1st party from this decision was unsuccessful the learned judges who heard the appeal being of opinion, in agreement with Mr. justice Banerjee, that the raiyati interest recorded in the earlier settlement companytinued inspite of the entry Bakasht Malik in the subsequent Settlements and the raiyati interest companyld number be alienated by the sale deed of May 15, 1935.
He was also of the view that assuming that the equitable doctrine of merger companyld be applied in such cases of unity between the interests of the raiyat and the landlord in the Santhal Parganas, the facts and circumstances of this case showed that there was numbermerger.
He also rejected the companytention made by the respondents that the plaintiffs were estopped from challenging the deed of sale.
On that certificate the defendants first party have preferred the present appeal.
1 to 7.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On appeal by the plaintiffs the District judge, Santhal Parganas, agreed with the findings of the Trial Court and held that the suit had been rightly dismissed.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS GUPTA, J. If a raiyat of lands in the District of Santhal Parganas acquires the entire superior landlords interest, does his raiyati interest cease to exist or does he companytinue to be a raiyat in addition to becoming a superior landlord ?
September II.
The plaintiffs and the four defendants, described in the plaint as defendants 2nd party, are the successors in interest of one Santokhi Jha who became owner of the entire raiyati interest in these lands many years ago.
It was further pleaded that this transfer of 1935 was fraudulent and companylusive and that there was numberlegal neces sity for the transfer.
The plaintiffs then appealed to the High Court of judicature at Patna.
Before the High Court the finding that the sale deed was for legal necessity and there was numberfraud or companylusion were number challenged.
C. Chatterjee, A. N. Sinha and P. K. Mukherjee, for respondents Nos.
13 of 1954.
The plaintiffs case is that numberinterest passed to the vendees by that sale deed, because the raiyati character of the land was existing on the date of transfer and this was inalienable under the provisions of Regulation III of 1872.
They also pleaded that the lands in the suit were number, on the date of the sale, raiyati but Bakasht lands of the Malik and so there was numberbar to the sale of these lands under the provisions of Regulation III of 1872.
This is the main question raised in this appeal arising out of a suit for declaration and delivery of possession of 12 bighas, 16 kathas, 4 dhurs of land in Mauza, Chhatahara in the District of Santhal Parganas.
K. Jha and B. P. Jha, for the appellants.
The defendants first party denied the allegations of fraud or companylusion and further pleaded that the transfer was made for legal necessity for paying antecedent debts of the family and they are therefore binding on the plaintiffs.
