The plaintiffs claim in respect of other lands mentioned in schedule Gg of the plaint was dismissed.
This company tention was upheld by the subordinate judge but was negatived in appeal by the High Court, and it was held that the revenue sale was a sale of the shares on the touzi under section 13 of the Revenue Sales A and the purchaser did number acquire any right to and the tenures, he number being a purchaser of the entire estate as such and therefore the patni being in existence, the decree holder companyld number execute the decre for arrears of rent of the patni against other properties of the judgment debtors.
The trial judge decreed the suit in respect of some of the plots detailed at page 144 of the paper, book.
The appellant was number a party to those proceedings.
the plaintiffs without recognizing the transfer made by them.
On the same date he is alleged to have taker possession of some plots of land in possession on under tenure holders, encumbrance holders and niskardars.
The appeal and the cross objections were both dismissed by the High Court and the findings of the trial judge were maintained.
This plea was negatived up to the High Court and the plaintiffs suit was decreed.
An application was made for execution of the decree on 21st June, 1940, by attachment and sale of certain plots in possession of the judgment debtors On behalf of the judgment creditors it was companytended that the entire touzi having been sold under the revenue sale, the purchaser had become entitled to annul the tenure under section 37 of the Revenu Sales Act and as a matter of fact had annulled the same and companysequently the tenure itself having expired, section 168 A of the Bengal Tenancy Act did number apply and the decree was executable against other properties of the judgment debtors.
The plots of land described in schedule Ga were held as number assessed to revenue and that being so, defendant 15 was held number entitled to possession of these niskar lands.
2 1949 53 C.W.N. 428.
On the death of Kritibas Hui, the plaintiff s, four in number, being his sons and nephews, inherited the patni and the other properties left by him.
The numberice advertising the sale is Ex.
416 4 0 against defendant 1 on account of the paddy of 55 1/2 bighas of the land out of schedules.
the plaintiffs, before the sale took place.
23 of 1944 rising out of Judgment and Decree dated August 25, 1943, of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Zilla Midna pore, in Title Suit No.
The present appellant was impleaded as defendant 2 in the suit as purchaser of the touzi and as claiming to have annulled the plaintiffs interest.
It was companytended before the High Court that the revenue sale, though held in fact under section 13 of Act XI of 1859, should be deemed to have been held under section 3 and that the appellant had acquired all the rights of the purchaser of an entire estate.
16,835 3 6 as arrears of rent due to them from April, 1935, to March, 1939, in the companyrt of the subordinate judge of Midnapore against the recorded patnidars viz.,
There was the usual preliminary skirmish between the parties antecedent to the suit, resulting in proceedings under section 144, Criminal Procedure Code.
On the 22nd April, 1938, by a registered kabala the plaintiffs sold their interest in the patni to one Upendranath Pal.
On the 9th January, 1940, defendant 15 the appellant in exercise of the rights companyferred by section 37 of the Revenue Sales Act as purchaser of an entire estate in the revenue sale served a numberice on the maha expressing his unequivocal intention to annul and avoid all under tenures including patnis and darpatnis.
30 of 1941 for a declaration of title and companyfirmation of possession of certain plots of land in the companyrt of 1 1942 46 C.W.N. 540.
His father Ramnath Hui purchased some transferable occupancy ryoti lands under the said patni.
1 and by residuary account were advertised for sale on 24th June, 1939, under section 6 of the Bengal Land Revenue Sales Act XI of 1859 .
Bimal Kumar Hui and another brought a suit some time in the year 1941 for establishment of their rent free title in certain lands and for companyfirmation of their possession.
Upendranath Pal thus became the patnidar of the six anna share that was held by the plaintiffs prior to the year 1938.
On the 28th June, 1941, the plaintiff respondents, Satish Chandra Hui and others, instituted title suit No.
Both these shares were actually sold on the issue of a single numberice and at a single sale and were purchased by defendent 15 the appellant before us.
On the 25th March 1939, the landlords filed a suit claiming a sum of Rs.
The rest of the interest in the patni which had been acquired by Satish Chandra Hui, respondent No.
The plaintiffs thus ceased to have any interest in the patni and remained in possession of the lands in the status of occupancy ryots or undertenure holders.
As already stated, the land lords had sued for the recovery of the arrears of rent due from the patnidars, viz.,
The revenue sale held on 24th June, 1939, has lead to a crop of litigations.
Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated February 22, 1949, of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta Blank and Lahiri JJ.
Subsequently on the death of Ramnath, the plaintiff s while they were companysharer patnidars, inherited the aforesaid transferable occupancy ryoti lands under the patni purchased by Ramnath.
By the same process they acquired the mokarrari maurashi interest under the Bahali niskar lands of Sree Ishwar Dwar Basuli Thakurani mentioned in schedule Una annexed to the plaint.
The appellant pleaded that he was the purchaser of the entire touzi at the revenue sale held on 24th June, 1939, and had acquired the power to avoid and annual the encumbrances and that by a numberice duly published on the 9th January, 1940, he had annulled all under tenures including the patni and that the transfer of the patni to Upendranath Pal was a benami transaction and that even if it was held genuine the plaintiffs rights in the ryoti land had been extinguished as the ryoti rights had merged with the patni rights under section 22 of the Bengal Tenancy Act as it was in force before its amendment in 1928 and that by a sale of the patni to Upendranath Pal.
2409 there was a patni which included mouza Dingol.
Similarly the niskar lands mentioned in schedule Gha of the plaint were purchased by the plaintiffs after they had taken the inheritance of their father and grandfather.
Occupancy ryoti lands in schedule Ga of the plaint were purchased by the plaintiffs by different kabalas on different dates, after they had inherited the lands mentioned in schedules Ka and Kha of the plaint.
Kritibas Hui died in the year 1906 or 1907 and his father Ramnath died in the year 1908 or 1909 soon after the death of his son.
In the plaint it was averred that the plaintiffs were in possession of the plots of land mentioned in schedules Ka, Kha and Ga of the plaint as occupancy tenants, that in respect of the lands mentioned in schedules Gha and Una they had niskar rights and that as in the revenue sale the appellant did number purchase the entire estate he was number entitled to annul the patni and the other tenures or the rent free grants and that the plaintiffs having transferred the patni rights to Upendranath ,Pal which still subsisted, numbere of the encumbrances companyld be said to have been extinguished.
The sale certificate shows that what was certified to have been purchased by the appellant was the separate account share as also the residuary share making up between them the totality of the touzi.
Defendant 15 preferred an appeal to the High Court against the judgment of the subordinate judge, while the plaintiffs preferred cross objections.
These lands are described in schedule Ka of the plaint.
December2.
Defendant 2 pleaded that an entire touzi had been purchased by him at the revenue sale and he had thereafter annulled the interest held by the plaintiffs and they were disentitled to relief as they had numbersubsisting interest in the plots of land claimed by them.,
1, was also sold to one Gouranga Sundar Das Gupta along with Upendranath Pal.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Arun Kumar Dutta for respondents Nos.
Ka , Kha and Ga , to which they had proved their title and of which they were entitled to recover khas possession.
30 of 1941.
It was held that at the revenue sale the entire touzi did number pass to the appellant and he had acquired numberright to annul or avoid the under tenures and encumbrances, that the ryoti holdings of the plaintiffs had merged in the patni and had passed to, Upendranath Pal on the sale of the patni to him on 22nd April, 1938, but that Upendranath Pal had resettled these lands with the plaintiffs and they being settled the ryots of the village had acquired occupancy rights in these plots.
In the year 1885 Kritibas Hui purchased a share of the said patni.
In this suit the present appellant was impleaded as defendant 15.
The third occasion on which the effect of the revenue sale held on 24th June, 1939, came up for companysideration by the High Court arose in the suit which has given rise to the present appeal.
Plaintiffs were also given a decree for Rs.
While this suit was pending, the landlords failed to pay the March kist of the revenue and cesses of the touzi in both the accounts, with the result that both the undivided half shares of the touzi represented by separate account No.
2 b and 15.
in Appeal from Original Decree No.
In companyumn of the numberification the arrears due from the two shares were entered separately.
Both the two accounts were recorded in their names as joint proprietors.
173 of 1951.
That suit was decreed on the 14th May, 1940.
the plaintiffs rights in those lands stood transferred to him and they were number entitled to maintain any suit in respect of those plots.
For the second time the question whether at the same revenue sale defendant 15 purchased the entire estate or two separate shares only arose in a case wherein he was impleaded as a party.
Kritibas Hui, while he was a companysharer patnidar, purchased some transferable ryoti lands under the patni described in schedule Kha of the plaint.
When the plaintiffs in the year 1938 sold their patni interest they were heavily indebted to their landlords Sudhir Krishna Ghosh and Sunil Krishna Ghosh for arrears of patni rent.
Panchanan Ghose S.N. Mukharjee, with him for the appellant.
Sarat Chandra Jana and Bijay Kumar Bhose for respondent No.
Possession of the paddy crop growing on a number of plots was taken by the District Magistrate and eventually under the orders of the High Court the crop was handed over to defendant 1, an employee of the appellant.
the subordinate judge of Midnapore.
