The central legal point established in the judgment is that a covenant for reconveyance of lands, if valid and not infringing any statutory provisions, can be enforced by the successor in interest of the original lessor, even in the absence of privity of contract.

JUDGMENT

Greaves, J. - These appeals are by the plaintiff from a decision of the District Judge of Chittagong which reverses a decision of the Munsiff of the first Court of the same place. In the year 1851 one Har Chandra Roy let out certain lands by way of a grant which was in the nature of a putni lease to one Ramjoy Khansama. The lease contained a provision that the lessee would give back to the lessor if so required such portions of the land as he required. Ramjoy in the year 1862 executed in favour of one Cliunnn Misfcry a Kaimi Estemrari Mokurari raiyati lease of these lands. This contained a similar provision to that contained in the head lease as to giving back any lands required by the lessor. The present plaintiff is the successor in interest of Har Chandra Roy. He wanted back some of the lands in dispute for the purpose of a market and a College and he sued the successor in interest of Ramjoy for a reconveyance of the lands which he required. Eventually Ramjoy's predecessor or rather the Court on his behalf executed a reconveyance of these lands to the present plaintiff by virtue of the covenant to that effect contained in the lease of 1851. But the plaintiff found the lands in the occupation of the defendants who had, as I have stated, obtained them from Chunnu Mistry the original tenant under Ramjoy, and thereupon the suits, out of which these appeals arise, were commenced to obtain possession of the lands which had been reconvened to the plaintiff and to obtain vacant possession thereof. The first Court passed a decree, but the District Judge has dismissed the suit on the ground that the covenant was not enforceable by virtue of the provisions of Section 178 of the Bengal Tenancy Act; and the question before us is whether the decision of the District Judge was correct. Section 178(1) provides that nothing in any contract between a landlord and a tenant made before or after the passing of this Act, (a) shall bar in perpetuity the acquisition of an occupancy right in land, or (c) shall entitle a landlord 'to eject a tenant otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

2. Sub-section (3) provides that nothing in any contract made between a landlord and a tenant after the passing of the Act (a) shall prevent a raiyat acquiring in accordance with this Act an occupancy right in land. Section 179 to which reference was made provides that nothing in the Act shall be deemed to prevent a proprietor or a holder of a permanent tenure in a permanently settled area from granting a permanent mokurari lease on any terms agreed on between him and his tenant.

3. Now I will first dispose of the argument based on Section 178. In a decision of this Court reported in Afiluddi v. Satish Chandra Banerjee [1916] 29 C.L.J. 40, it has been decided that Section 179 only, applies to a tenancy created after the passing of the Act, and assuming for the purposes of this appeal that this decision is correct, Section 179 cannot therefore be relied on by the appellant as an answer to the defendants' contention in the suit. But in my opinion Section 178, Sub-section (1)(a) and (c) have no application in circumstances of this kind. Here the bargain was made between the proprietor of the land and the putnidar which was a valid and a legal bargain and did not infringe any provision of the Bengal Tenancy Act or of any other Act. It was provided as I have already stated that if the proprietor required certain of the lands leased out these would be re-conveyed or assigned to him by the putnidar and the lands therefore in the hands of the putnidar were subject to this obligation, that is to say, it was not possible for him to create any inferior interest in the lands except burdened with the condition which he himself was bound to observe if called upon to recovery and re-assign the lands by the proprietor. Looked at in this light it cannot be said that the covenant entered into by the lessee and the putnidar was any infringement of the provis