Ambika Prasad Singh and Another vs Laxmi Ahir

Meredith, J.—This appeal under the Letters Patent is without merit. It is by the plaintiffs against a decision of Beevor J. and arises out of a suit for realisation of rent for the years 1347 to 1349 Fasli in respect of an alleged holding comprising 3.6 acres of land out of khata No. 16 in village Amaishi Dihra, tauzi No. 4918. The plaintiffs alleged that the rent claimed lands appertained to khewat No. 1/1 of which they were the sixteen annas proprietors by private partition before the survey. The defence, was that one Bachu Singh was the sixteen annas proprietor of the rent claimed lands and that the defendant has paid rent for the years in suit to him, and that the suit could not proceed without impleading Bachu Singh and other maliks of khewat No. 1/1. The defendant further contended that his holding was of 6.53 acres with a different annual rental, arid the suit brought in respect of a part of the holding was not maintainable.

The trial Court found that the sixteen annas rent of the holding in suit from 1347 up to the first eight annas kist of 1349 was payable to the plaintiffs find Bachu Singh, and the rent of the second eight annas kist of 1349 was payable to the plaintiffs. But as the plaintiffs did not plead separate collection from Bachu Singh, and as the plea of payment to Bachu Singh was accepted in respect of all but the eight annas kist of 1349, it was held that the plaintiffs would be entitled to rent only for the second eight annas kist of 1349. They were, however, not entitled to any decree at all as the plaintiffs'' plea that the holding had been split up was not correct, rather the holding of 6.53 acres still existed.

These findings were all confirmed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, in first appeal.

In second appeal, the sole point taken before Beevor J. was that although the plaintiffs could not get a rent decree, they should nevertheless on the basis of the Full Bench decision in Jeonandan Singh Vs. Janki Singh and Others, get a money decree. The learned Judge rejected ''this contention. He pointed out that it had been held in a decision of Wort J. in Ram Chandra Mahton and Another Vs. Ram Gulam Mahton and Others, that a suit for rent for a part of the holding was not maintainable, and in such a suit the landlord was not entitled even to a money decree, because in such a case the suit had not really been brought in respect of the holding at all, but in respect of an alleged different holding which did not in fact exist, Beevor J. pointed out that this decision of Word J. though referred to by the Full Bench was not dissented from, and the decision of the Full Bench was confined to an entirely different class of cases, namely where there were bona fide errors or omissions in the description of the holding, or some dispute as to its exact area. Such a case is clearly quite different from a suit based on an allegation that the holding has been split into two separate holdings that allegation being incorrect.

As I have said, there is no merit at all in this appeal, and I would dismiss it with costs.

Manohar Lall, J.

I agree.