In the plaint, it was alleged that there was a private partition between the mokarraridars by virtue of which the lands of village Darha were divided between the three sets of mokarraridars, each set being in separate possession of its own separate and defined shares.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated 14th February, 1946, in Appeal from Original Decree No.
In the year 1918, Title Suit No.
If the lessor purchases the lessees interest, the lease numberdoubt is extinguished as the same man cannot at the same time be both a landlord and a tenant, but there is numberextinction of the lease if one of the several lessees purchases only a part of the lessors interest.
On the 17th August, 1926, pro ceedings were taken against them for recovery of the cess and their interest was sold in execution of a certificate on the 18th October, 1927, to one Bijainandan Sahay.
On the 21st September, 1934, the defendants first party as mokarraridars brought a suit against the plaintiffs for arrears of raiyati rent for the years 1338 39 F. to the extent of six annas share and for the years 134041 F. to the extent of fourteen anna share claiming that under the parti tion decree they got a fourteen anna share in the mokarrari interest in the village.
Possession was ob tained by one Kamta Prasad who had acquired this interest from Bijainandan Sahay on the 20th April, 1928.
An injunction was also claimed restraining the defendants from proceeding with the rent suit.
Subsequently, the two anna share of Madho Saran Singh was purchased by Hiranand Jha, father of the plaintiffs, jointly with.
By virtue of these purchases he came to own the lakhraj interest to the extent of eight anna share.
This was companyfirmed on the 19th December, 1927, and a sale certificate was issued on the both March, 1928.
On the 5th June, 1916, Bisheshwar Dayal Singh purchased six anna share in the lakhraj interest from Deolal Pathak and others and on the 9th February, 1917, he purchased another two anna share from Mandil Pathak.
This was followed by deliv ery of possession on 15th July, 1928.
Plaintiffs companytested the suit alleging that Bisheshwars mokarrari interest had merged in the lakhraj interest that was purchased by him from the Pathaks in the years 1916 17, and that by the sale under the Governments certificate his whole eight anna interest in the village including both the lakhraj and the mokarrari had passed on to the plaintiffs and that the defendants first party companyld only claim rent from them to the extent of the six anna share in the mokarrari.
117 of 1942 arising out of Title Suit No.
He already held the mokarrari interest to the same extent which had devolved on him by inheritance.
This suit was decreed in the year 1921, and in the final partition an allotment of two annas share in Darha village was made in their favour.
The result of the partition proceedings was that the defendants first party came to hold fourteen anna mokarrari interest in village Darha, Bisheshwar Dayal Singhs interest was limited to three khatians only, and the Jhas got a separate allotment for their two anna share in the mokarrari.
This plea was disallowed and the defendants first partys claim for rent was decreed in full.
On the 1st May, 1933, Kamta Prasad transferred his interest in the village to the plaintiffs who thus became proprietors of sixteen anna share in the village and mokarraridars as to two anna share and raiyats of the entire sixteen annas in the whole village.
9 of 1939 Civil Appeal No.
Durganand Jha and Dharam Dayal.
The trial Judge held that both the partitions alleged by the plaintiffs in paragraphs 5 and 8 of their plaint were proved and that the mokarrari interest of Bisheshwar Dayal Singh merged in his lakhraj interest and that at the certif icate sale the purchaser acquired his companyplete interest both lakhraj and mokarrari along with the eight anna lakhraj interest of the Pathaks and that the defendants first party were mokarraridars of six anna interest in the village and to that extent were entitled to a decree in their rent suit and companyld number claim a decree for rent to the extent of fourteen anna share.
The decree was upheld on appeal and second appeal.
They thus became mokarraridars of two anna share and raiyats of sixteen annas of the village lands.
In such a case the leasehold and the reversion cannot be said to companyncide.
It was the plaintiffs case that mauza Darha was orginally granted in mokarrari under a single companytract of lease and it was by inheritance that the lessees interest devolved on three branches of the family, Bisheshwar Dayal Singh getting an interest of eight annas in the whole of the leasehold.
It appears that some time about the year 1926 the lakhraj interest holders, i.e., the Pathaks and Bisheshwar Dayal Singh, were in default in the payment of the cess due to Government.
These three khatians were allotted to Bisheshwar Dayal Singh and in exchange for the remaining portions of his interest in that village he was given some property in village Holeya.
The remaining fourteen anna share excluding khatian 1, 3 and 6 was allotted to the defendants first party.
Some time in the year 1917 or 1918 Hiranand Jha and Durganand Jha, who had acquired by purchase two anna mokar rari interest of Madho Saran Singh, purchased in execution of a rent decree the raiyati interest in the whole village and came into possession of it.
Over a hundred years ago the Pathaks granted the entire village in mokarrari to the ancestors of the family of Singhas defendants first and second parties at an annual jams of Rs.
The Jhas were impleaded as defendants in the suit, being companysharers in part of the property in suit.
The salient facts of the case are as follows Village Darha belonged to a family of Pathaks as their ancestral lakhraj.
Dharam Dayal was a mere benamidar for Hiranand Jha.
40 of 1950.
The mokarrari interest eventually devolved on three branches of the Singha family, each branch getting in the following proportions Parameshwar Dayal and others, defendants first party, to the extent of six annas Bisheswar Dayal Singh, defendants second party, to the extent of eight annas and Madho Saran Singh, to the extent of two annas.
C. Chatterjee P. B. Gangoli, with him for the re spondent.
59 of 1918 was insti tuted in the companyrt of the Subordinate Judge of Palamau for partition of the lands situate in several villages and belonging to the family of the defendants first and second parties.
The suit was decreed by the Subordi nate Judge but on appeal this decision was reversed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna and the appellants suit was dismissed.
C. Misra for the appellant.
February 5.
The judgment of the Court was deliv ered by MAHAJAN J. This appeal arises out of Suit No.
It was also pleaded that there was another parti tion between the proprietors of the lakhrai interest, that is, between Bisheshwar Dayal Singh on the one hand and Deolal Pathak, Neman Pathak and Surajnath Pathak on the other, by virtue of which the lands that were in mokarrari patties of Parmeshwar Dayal Singh and others and Hiranand Jha and Durganand Jha fell in the patti of Deolal Pathak and others, while, the lands that were in the mokarrari patti of the defendants second party fell in his proprietary lakhraj patti and that as a result of these partitions the mokarrari interest of the defendants second party merged in his lakhraj interest and under a certificate sale the whole of his interest passed to the plaintiffs.
9 of 1939 instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Palamau by the appellants against the respondents for a number of declarations in respect to the title to certain lands and for an injunction restraining the respondents from proceed ing with a rent suit.
