Binode Behari Bose and Others vs Tokhi Singh and Another

Ross, J.—The only question in this appeal is as to the claim for rent of 1325 and 1326. The Courts below held that no award could be made by the Civil Court in respect of these years inamuch as the matter had been decided by the Revenue Court u/s 70 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.

The contention on behalf of the landlords whe are the Appellants is that there is no final order enforceable as a decree passed by the Revenue Court. The orders are in the following terms and in each case the final order consists of two parts. As regards the year 1325 the order is as follows: "28 February 1918. Parties heard. The khesra seems fair and is accepted. The landlord''s share if not accepted may be sold and proceeds deposited in the treasury" ..."16th March 1918. Sale proceeds deposited into the treasury by chalan No. 75, dated the 15th March 1918. Case disposed of." In the case of the year 1326 the order is as follows:--"20th January 1919. Khesra examined. There is no objection before me by any party.... I approve the khesra." "The landlords have refused to accept the hakmi share of the crops. The same will be sold and the sale ''proceeds will be deposited in the treasury to their credit. Issue orders to the Sarpanch accordingly." "3rd February 1919. Sale proceeds Rs. 140-0-3 credited into treasury by chalan No. 15, dated 27th January 1919. Case disposed of." With regard to the second order, that is for the year 1326, the learned vakil for the Appellants concedes that that is a final order enforceable as a decree, but he contends that the order dealing with the year 1325 is not a final order or one enforceable as a decree, because there is no direction that the money is to be paid to the credit of the landlords. The order must be read as a whole and it comes to this. The takhmina papers were considered by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the division was approved. That means that the crop was divided between the two parties, landlord and tenant. With regard to the landlord''s share a further direction was given that if he did not accept it then it should be sold and the money deposited in the treasury. The money that was deposited was the sale proceeds of the landlord''s share and consequently it was his money and no further direction in my opinion was necessary and the landlord would be entitled on that order to withdraw the money. That is clearly a final order enforceable as a decree and the provisions of Section 70 of the Act have been fully complied with. I would therefore dismiss this appeal but without costs. The cross appeal is not pressed and is dismissed.

Das, J.

I agree.