Back
1920 Supreme(Nagpur) 1
NAGPUR JUDICIAL COMMISSIONERS COURT
Drake-Brockman
JHIBLIAT – Appellant
Versus
DAWLATIA – Respondent
Second Appeal No. 603 of 1917
Decided on : 02-01-1920
A C Roy, Atmaram Bhagvant, V V Chitale, Advocates
The main legal point established is that the sub-tenancy arrangement created at the Settlement should be considered binding for the plaintiff's lifetime, and the relevant legal provisions did not govern the case.
Headnote:
Sub-tenancy - Land Dispute - Land Revenue Act, 1881, Tenancy Act 1883 - S. 55(2), S. 50B(2)
Fact of the Case:
The dispute arose over possession of land between the plaintiff and the defendants, involving a sub-tenancy arrangement and the interpretation of settlement records and wajib-ul-arz.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Judge initially ruled in favor of the plaintiff, recognizing a sub-tenancy in his favor and ordering reinstatement in possession. However, the District Judge reversed the decision, holding that the Settlement Officer could not create a binding sub-tenancy. The High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiff, reinstating the trial Judge's decision with a modification.
Issues: The key issues included the creation and binding nature of the sub-tenancy, the effect of the Settlement entry on the parties' rights, and the interpretation of relevant legal provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the sub-tenancy arrangement created at the Settlement should be treated as binding upon the Kotwar for the plaintiff's lifetime, and that the Tenancy Act provisions did not govern the case. It emphasized the equitable nature of the arrangement and the understanding between the parties involved.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the District Judge's decree and restored the trial Judge's decision, with the modification that the sub-tenancy enjoyed by the plaintiff would endure for his lifetime only. The defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs in all three Courts.
Drake-Brockman—The suit out of which this second appeal arises was brought by the present appellant Jhiblia on the 25th February, 1916 to obtain possession of khasra numbers 104.1 and 104.2 in mauza Jakhegaon. The original defendants were one Namia and his four sons of whom the eldest is Dawlatia. While the suit was pending in the Court of first instance Dawlatia's son Bodria, a minor, was added as co-defendant. Namia died alter the case was decided by the lower Appellate Court and his five co-defendants are now the sole respondents.
2. When mauza Jakhegaon came to be settled in 1893-94 the plaintiff, Jhiblia, and the late Namia were the Kotwars, each having succeeded his father in this office. The village service holding enjoyed by the Kotwars consisted of Survey Numbers 104 and 105 of which Jhiblia occupied number 104 and Namia number 105. The Settlement Officer decided that one Kotwar sufficed for the village and Jhiblia was dismissed, the question which of the two Kotwars should be retained having been decided by lot in Namia's favour, It was, however, arranged that Jhiblia should retain possession of number 104 paying the assessed rental of Rs. 6 to Namia, The jamabandi of the Settlement Record (Ex. P-3) shows Jhiblia as Namia's subtenant, Namia himself being recorded as the village-service tenact.
3. The wajib-ul-arz (Ex. P-4) contains an entry on the subject which has been translated thus: As Jhiblia is a Kotwar of longstanding, he should himself cultivate Kotwardung which is at present under his cultivation and should pay Rs. 6 rent of Kotwardung to Namia, son of Lahu.
4. It also appears from Ex. P-1 that the total rent assessed upon numbers 104 and 105 was Rs. 9 and that Namia's cash remuneration payable by the malguzars was to be reduced by the whole of this amount.
5. The new Settlement came into force on the 1st July, 1913. The defendant Dawlatia was appointed the sole Kotwar and the entire village service holding consisting of new numbers 104-1, 104-2 and 105 was recorded in his sole name. Numbers 104 1 and 104-2 correspond to the old number 104 and the assessed rental there on is now Rs. 8. The new wajib-ul-arz contains no clause like that above reproduced from the wajib-ul-arz of 1893-94.
6. The allegation in the plaint is that Namia and his son after accepting rent for the agricultural years 1913-14 and 1914-15 ejected the plaintiff in July 1914. The plaintiff claimed in addition to re instatement in possession correction of the new wajib-ul-arz and the connected jamabandi by inclusion of a clause in the former terms the rent payable being Rs. 8. In the course of these trials the defendant Daw latia resigned his post and obtained the appointment of his son Bodria, as Kotwar with the defendant, Bitkia, as his guardian.
7. The defence was that the plaintiff remained in possession of old number 104 by virtue of a private arrangement between himself and Namia according to which Namia was to be assistsd in the Kotwar's duties and that this arrangement did not bind any of Namia's successors-in office. It was also contended that under S. 55 (2) of the Tenancy Act 1893, which is practically idenlical in terms which S. 50 B (2) of the Act of 1833, the plaintiff's sub-lease, if for a period exceeding one year at a time, was void. Other pleas also were put forward, but with them we are not now concerned. The following issues among others were framed:
1. whether the plaintiff continued to remain in possession of the field under the orders of the Settlement Officer at the Settlement of 1893-94 or whether the plaintiff was in possession of the field under the private arrangement between defendant 1 and plaintiff as alleged by the defendants?
2. What is the effect of the Settlement entry on the rights of parties?
3. To what relief are the parties entitled?
8. The trial Judge held that a right of sub-tenancy was created in favour of the plaintiff by the Settlement of 1891-94 and that the plaintiff was entitled to remain in posse
