Dip Narayan Singh vs Bhim Mandal and Others

Adami, J.—These four second appeals have been heard together with the consent of the parties. They arise out of four suits in each of which the plaintiff sought for enhancement of rent u/s 30, Clause (b) of the Bengal Tenancy Act on the ground of rise in prices of staple food crops with regard to the nagdi lands in a holding in each of the suits.

The Courts below have found that the holding in each of the suits was a holding consisting of both nagdi and bhaoli lands and held that this being so, the plaintiff was not, entitled to seek for enhancement of rent with regard to the nagdi portion of a holding for which both bhaoli and nagdi rents were payable and the Courts below in each suit have dismissed the case.

Mr. Naresh Chandra Sinha has admitted that ordinarily where a holding consists of both nagdi and bhaoli lands, the landlord cannot institute the suit u/s 30(b) of the Bengal Tenancy Act for enhancement of the nagdi rents, but he contends that the present cases differ from the case of a simple holding consisting of both nagdi and bhaoli lands. He has put before us the khatian in respect of the lands covered in Suit No. 42 of 1923. In that khatian the khata number is 288 and it shows that the khata contains 24 plots for which nagdi rent is payable, six plots for which bhaoli rent is payable and five plots which are shown in the khatian as belagan. The khatian shows that the area of the nagdi lands is 34-64 acres and of the bhaoli lands 4-22 acres.

He contends that in the cases such as the present ones the lands comprised under the khata No. 288 do not comprise one holding but that the nagdi lands in that khata are one holding, the bhaoli lands another and the belagan, lands another. He lays stress on the point that there are belagan lands separately recorded in that khatian.

Now a holding according to the definition means a parcel or parcels of land held by a raiyat and forming the subject of a separate tenancy. In the khatian the names of the tenants are given as being tenants of all the plots mentioned in the khatian and the khata No. 288. The receipts produced show that for khata No. 288 nagdi and bhaoli rents are entered, and in fact in the Schedule to the Bengal Tenancy Act the form of receipt shows that each receipt is a receipt for a holding. At the head of the receipt are the words "Particulars of the Holding" and under those particulars are shown first nagdi and then bhaoli lands.

In the plaints in the suits the plaintiff in para. 2 states that the defendants'' "holding" has been recorded in khata No. 288. The plaintiff doss not describe the khata, No. 288 ns consisting of more than the one holding and in fact it has been the practice and custom of Settlement Officers to show a separate tenancy for a holding, under a single khata number; a khata number will never consist of more than one holding.

In the khatian no separate rent is shown for each of the plots given but the total cash rental is given for those plots which pay nagdi rent. The bhaoli rent could not, of course, be stated because it depends on the produce of each year. The fact that the nagdi area is specially mentioned does not point to the nagdi lands forming a separate holding. The entry of belagan lands cannot help the appellant for the belagan lands will obviously be lands which are homestead or are unsuitable for cultivation.

For the respondents Mr. Nurul Hussain has observed that the question before the lower Courts was whether all the lands formed one holding or not, and the Courts have found that they do form one holding and he urges that this is a finding of fact. He points out, too, that if there are separate holdings, the plaintiff would have been able to show these by the production of laggit and other papers and the plaintiff has not produced any such papers.

In my mind, the findings of the lower Courts were quite correct and they point to the various plots under one khata number in each of the suits forming one holding and as they form one holding the plaintiff was not entitled to claim an enhancement of the cash rents, since the holding consisted both of bhaoli and nagdi lands.

The appeals are dismissed with costs. There will be one set of costs which will be paid by the appellant.

Scroope, J.

I agree.