Chamru Saha vs Kanak Singh Mundu

Wort, J.—This is an appeal from the judgment of the Judicial Commissioner of Chota Nagpur allowing an objection u/s 47, Civil P.C. The judgment-debtor raised an objection under that section regarding the sale of his holding which was described in the Record-of-Rights as maurusi khunt katti and it was contended that that was not transferable u/s 240, Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, and therefore, the objection should have been allowed and the holding released from sale. The learned Munsif decided against the objection on the ground that according to the Settlement Report of the District of Ranchi, 1902-1910, khunt katti tenure in thana Silli was transferable. The learned Judicial Commissioner in allowing the appeal against the decision of the Munsif came to the conclusion that although the tenure was described as maurusi khunt katti, the fact that the judgment-debtor was a munda established in its turn the fact that this was mundari khunt katti and therefore, as I have already indicated, he allowed the objection which was dismissed by the Munsif.

Sections 7 ant! 8, Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, are referred to in the argument by the learned advocate on behalf of the appellant decree-holder. Section 7 defines a "raiyat having khunt katti rights" as a raiyat in occupation of, or having any subsisting title to, land reclaimed from jungle by the original founders of the village or their descendants in the male line. Section 8 defines a "mundari khunt kattidar" as a mundari who has acquired a right to hold jungle land for the purpose of bringing suitable portions thereof under cultivation by himself or by the male members of his family, etc. It is contended on behalf of the decree-holder hat the learned Judicial Commission is wrong in law as he has admitted evidence either to explain or contradict the Record-of-Rights. Section 256 is relied upon in this connexion which provides that:

where a Record-of-Rights has been finally published u/s 83 of this Act, or under Sub-section (2) Section 183-A, Ben. Ten. Act 1885, or amended u/s 254 of this Act, the entries'' therein relating to mundari khunt kattidari tenancies shall be conclusive evidence of the nature and incidents of such tenancies and of all particulars recorded in such entries; and, if any tenancy in the area, estate or tenure for which the Record-of-Rights was prepared has not been recorded therein as a mundari khunt kattidari tenancy, no evidence shall be received in any Court to show that such tenancy is a mundari khunt kattidari tenancy.

It is contended on behalf of the respondent that the procedure adopted by the Judicial Commissioner is not contrary to Section 256. The evidence which was received by the Judicial Commissioner was merely evidence to explain an ambiguous entry in the record; that in the absence of an entry to the effect that the judgment-debtor was a raiyat, it was necessary to adduce evidence which was adduced in this case in order to show whether it was a khunt katti tenure u/s 7 or a mundari khunt katti tenure u/s 8 of the Act. In my judgment the mere fact that this holding was not recorded as a mundari khunt katti is in itself a sufficient answer to the argument advanced on behalf of the respondent. That entry being what it was, it cannot be held under the circumstances that it was a mundari khunt katti and in consequence the judgment of the learned Judicial Commissioner, in my judgment, was wrong and must be reversed. The appeal is allowed with costs.

Adami, J.

I agree.