Chinmoyee Debi vs Saraswati Debi

P.N. Mookerjee, J.—In this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of our learned brother S.K. Dutta J., the only point which arises for consideration is whether the three Courts below were justified in finding title in favour of the Plaintiff Respondent with regard to the dispute land.

The Plaintiff claimed title to the same as a tenant. In support of her claim of tenancy, she produced an amalnama and also two rent receipts apart from oral evidence. The settlement record was against the Plaintiff''s claim, as therein the Defendants'' names were recorded. The first two Courts, upon a consideration of the evidence, refused to accept the Defendants'' story of settlement of the disputed land with them by the landlord and refused to rely on ''the evidence, including documentary evidence in the shape of rent receipts, adduced by the Defendants in support of their said claim. They preferred on the point the Plaintiff''s evidence of possession and also of payment of rent under the two receipts, referred to hereinbefore, and further held that, although the amalnama was inadmissible in evidence to prove a lease, it not being registered, although purporting to create a present demise, it was admissible for proving the collateral facts of the Plaintiff''s entry into possession of the disputed land and also the nature and character of such possession. It was further held by them that the rent receipts, referred to hereinbefore, produced by the Plaintiff, were enough to show a relationship of landlord and tenant between the Plaintiff and her landlords, who are admitted owners of the disputed land, by payment'' and receipt of rent. In support of their above conclusions, the Courts below relied upon the decisions of the Judicial Committee in N. Varada Pillai v. Jeevarathanammal (1919) 24 C.W.N. 346, J.C. Galstaun v. Prafulla Kumar De (1932) 36 C.W.N. 583, Jagannath Marwari v. Sm. Chandni Bibi (1921) 26 C.W.N. 65 and Abdullah Khan Vs. Muhammad Maqbul Hussain and Others, .

The Courts below also held that, in view of the above, the converse presumption arising from the settlement record must be held to be rebutted and the said entries should be held to have been made without foundation. Reliance on this part of the case was placed by the Courts below on the decision of this Court, reported in Rai Kiran Chandra Roy Bahadur v. Srinath Chakravarty (1926) 31 C.W.N. 135

We are unable to say that, in taking the above view, the Courts below have committed any error of law, which would justify interference in this Letters Patent Appeal. The two rent receipts, produced by the Plaintiff, have been accepted as sufficient for showing that the Plaintiff paid rent for the disputed land to the admitted landlords, although the rent receipts were given by one of them, who was acting as the Manager on behalf of all the landlords. That being so, the relationship of landlord and tenant is established in favour of the Plaintiff in respect of the disputed land and the amalnama, as already observed, on the authority of the decision of the Judicial Committee in N. Varada Pillai v. Jeevarathanammal (Supra), would furnish the other relevant materials, namely, the date of commencement of such tenancy, which would correspond with the Plaintiff''s entry into, possession, the amalnama obviously being admissible for. purposes of showing the said date and also the nature and character of possession, which would clearly be, on the amalnama, as a tenant, the same being confirmed by and confirming in turn, the relation ship of landlord and tenant, established between the Plaintiff and the admitted owners of the disputed land by the two rent receipts, mentioned hereinbefore.

It is obvious that, upon the above finding and having regard to the concurrent findings of the two Courts of fact below that the Defendants'' evidence on the question of their tenancy was unacceptable, the presumption arising in favour of the Defendants from the entry in the settlement record must be held to have been rebutted as incorrect records by the said Courts. In this situation it was not open to this Court in second appeal to interfere with the concurrent decision of the two Courts below in favour of the Plaintiff and on our part, also, no interference would be permissible in this Letters Patent Appeal.

We would, accordingly, dismiss this appeal.

There will, however, be no order for costs in this appeal.

Amiya Kumar Mookerji, J.

I agree.