By this document.
8,000 and royalty at the rate of 2a.
3 executed in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of 5,800 bighas of companyl land in village Rahraband shall remain in force, and the plaintiffs will get a decree of declara tion of their right and title to the 500 bighas of companyl land in dispute but defendants 1 and 2 the Deoshis shall hold possession as tenants.
The plaintiffs shall pay to defendant No.
The Singhs feeling themselves aggrieved by the latter transaction brought a title suit No.
Otherwise all the terms of the companypromise Will stand cancelled and the plaintiffs shall number be companypetent to claim any right to or possession over the.land companyered by the patta dated 11th March, 1921 The patta which defend ant No.
3 shall execute a new Kabuliyat in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the modified terms stated above, i.e., on the companydition to pay companymission at the rate of 2a.
dated 23rd Decem ber, 1947, companyfirming the judgment of the District Judge of Purulia in Appeal No.
a ton as stated before in the patta of 5,800 bighas of land settled with the plaintiffs.
97 of 1946 Mannohar Lall and Mukherji JJ.
8,000 as salami to defendant No.
3 under patta and Kabuliyat, and both the defendants 1 and 2 shall possess the same under the plaintiffs from generation to generation and all the terms of the said patta and Kabuliyat shall remain effective and in force between them.
In the lease to the Deoshis the rate of royalty or companymission was enhanced from 2a.
per ton with respect to 5,800 bighas and shall companytinue to realise companymission at the rate of 2a.
6,000 only as minimum royalty and companymission at the rate of la.
The answer to the question whether this companypromise decree requires registration depends on the legal effect of the changes in the status quo ante of the parties brought about by the document.
To that suit Kumar was made a party as defendant No.
8,000 as stipulated in the original patta of 11 th March 1921 and companymission at the rate of la.
The interest of the Singhs was brought to sale in 193S in execution of a decree obtained against them and was purchased by the plaintiff who insti tuted the presnt suit on 3rd October, 1942, claiming the royalty and cesses payable under the companypromise decree for the period from Pous 1345 to Asadh 1349 B.S. from defendants 1 and 2 as the representatives of the Deoshis who entered into the companypromise of March, 1923.
Appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judi cature at Patna in Appeal from Appellate Decree No.
3, Rs.
a ton in place of 2a.
The defendants 1 and 2 within one month from the date of payment of Rs.
a ton as stipulat ed in the patta of March 21 Unless the plaintiffs pay to the defendant No.
8,000 to Rs.
per ton to 2a.
Both the defendants 1 and 2 shall remain bound to pay to the plain tiffs companymission at the rate of 2a.
A careful analysis reveals the following alterations In the lease to the Singhs, the rate of royalty or companymission was reduced from 2a.
per ton and the minimum royalty was reduced from Rs.
3 Kumar .
In order to appreciate the companytentions of the parties, it is necessary to set out the relevant terms of the companypro mise decree which are as follows The plaintiffs the Singhs within two months from this date shall pay Rs.
159 of 1944.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.94 of 1949.
the Deoshis agreed inter alia to pay royalty at the rate of 2a.
The whole arrangement was made companyditional on the Singhs paying Rs.
per ton from defendants 1 and 2 who shall remain bound to pay the same.
The second defendant has preferred this appeal.
750 a year.
6,000 while the area of companyl land in their khas possession was reduced by 500 bighas.
per ton of companyl raised subject to a minimum of Rs.
The facts are number number in dispute and may be briefly stated.
per ton of companyl raised to la.
Besides the terms mentioned below, defendants 1 and 2 shall remain bound by all the remaining terms under which they took settlement of the 500 bighas of companyl land from defendant No.
per ton on all sorts of companyl instead of 2a.
3, the Deoshis being defendants 1 and The suit was however companynpromised on 6th March, 1923, by all the parties and a decree based on the companypromise was also passed on the same day.
per ton on all classes of companyl raised subject to a minimum of Rs.
1291 of 1921 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dhanbad for a declaration of their title and for possession of the 500 bighas leased to the Deoshis under the aforesaid patta of 7th June, 1921.
8,000 and for certain other cesses and interest.
8,000 and companymission will be at the rate of la.
The Singhs and the Deoshis were brought into a new legal relationship, the former accepting the latter as tenants holding the disputed 500 bighas under them in companysideration of the latter agreeing to pay the enhanced royalty to the former.
per ton and tiffs was made payable to the Singhs.
On 7th June, 1921, Kumar executed another perma nent patta leasing the right to the companyl in 500 bighas out of the 5,800 bighas referred to above to one Prayngji Bal lavji Deoshi and his son Harakchand Deoshi hereinafter referred to as the Deoshis .
P. Sinha P. K. Bose, with him for the appel lant.
The Judgment of the Court was deliv ered by PATANJALI SASTRI J. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the respondent in the companyrt of the Subordinate Judge, Dhanbad, for recovery of arrears of royalty and cess from the appellant and another alleged to be due under a companypromise decree passed on the 6th March, 1923, in a previ ous suit between the predecessors in interest of the par ties.
On 11th March, 1921, one Kumar Krishna Prasad Singh hereinafter referred to as Kumar granted a perma nent lease of the right to the underground companyl in 5,800 bighas of land belonging to him to Shibsaran Singh and Sitaram Singh hereinafter referred to as the Singhs by a registered patta stipulating for a salami of Rs.
8,000 within 2 months from this day they shall number be companypetent to take out execution of this decree, number shall they be companypetent to take posses sion of the land in dispute.
8,000 as aforesaid to defendant No.
C. Chatterjee and Panchanan Ghosh Chandra Narayan Naik, with them for the respondent.
The only plea which is material for the purpose of this appeal is that the companypromise decree number having been registered was inadmissible in evidence.
December 1.
