Kesho Prasad Singh vs Ram Swarup Ahir and Others

Ross, J.—This is an appeal from a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Arrah, varying a decree passed by the Munsif of Buxar. The plaintiff is the appellant. He sued the defendants for rent and cess for 1325 to 1328 and the only question is as to the amount of cess legally payable by the defendants.

The plaintiff''s case was that the defendants were tenure-holders within the meaning of the Cess Act, that the annual value of their holding was Rs. 95-4-0 as entered in the cess valuation papers; that the rent of their holding, as entered in the Record of Rights, was Rs. 31-0-6 and that consequently u/s 41, 01.(2) of the Cess Act the defendants were liable to pay cess at the rate of one anna in the rupee calculated on the annual value of the holding, namely, Rs. 95-4-0, less half an anna in the rupee on the rent of the holding: Rs. 31-0-6. The defence was that the defendants were cultivating raiyats within the meaning of the Cess Act, and that they were liable only to pay cess u/s 41, Clause (3) at the rate of half an anna in the rupee upon the rent of their holding, Rs. 31-0-6.

The Munsif held that the defendants were liable to pay cess at half an anna in the rupee on the annual value of their holding which was Rs. 95-4-0. There was an appeal by the plaintiff and a cross-appeal by the defendants. The plaintiff''s appeal was dismissed and the cross-appeal was allowed and it was held by the Subordinate Judge that the defendants were liable to pay cess at half an anna in the rupee on Rs. 31-0-6. The plaintiff has come up to this Court in second appeal.

The argument on behalf of the appellant is that u/s 93 of the Cess Act the civil Courts have no jurisdiction to question the cess valuation. Section 93 provides that: "Every valuation under this part shall be open to revision by the Commissioner or Board of Revenue and not otherwise." Now the cess valuation statement shows the names of the defendants in col. 1 which is headed: "Name of zemindars, tenure-holders and sub-tenure-holders." In column 2 of which the heading is "Nij-jote and other assessed areas of landlords" is entered Rupees 63-3-0. In column 3, which is headed "Raiyatwari lands", is entered Rs. 32-1-0 The total valuation is given in column 7 as Rs. 95-4-0 and that is the total of columns 2 and 3. Column 8, which is headed "Revenue or rent on which deduction u/s 41 is allowable," shows an entry of Rs. 31-0-6. The appellant contends that, on this document, it must be taken for the purposes of the Cess Act that the defendants are tenure-holders; that the annual value of their holding is Rs. 95-4-0 and that deduction is allowable u/s 41 on the rental of Rs. 31-0-6; in other words, that this document establishes the plaintiff''s claim.

The argument on behalf of the respondents is that the defendants are recorded in the Record of Rights as tenants at fixed rates at a rental of Rs. 31-0-6 and that they must therefore be assessed as cultivating raiyats, and that their liability is determined by Section 41, Clause (3) The argument based on 8. 93 is sought to be answered by a reference to Section 107 which says: "Nothing in this part contained, and nothing done in accordance with this Act, shall be deemed to affect the rights of any person in respect of immovable property or of any interest therein except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act." Now the meaning of this section is clear, namely, that what is done under the Cess Act is done only for the purposes of that Act and has no other effect on the rights of persons. It does not in any way modify the conclusive effect given by Section 93 to the cess valuation. The fact that the defendants are recorded in the Record of Rights as tenants at fixed rates is strictly irrelevant to the present question. The question is not as to status of the defendants under the Bengal Tenancy Act; the question is as to their status and liability for the purposes of the Cess Act. The Revenue authorities have determined that the defendants are tenure-holders and that the annual value of their holding is Rs. 95-4-0 of which Rs. 63-3-0 is in respect of lands held by themselves and Rs. 32-1-0 is in respect of lands let out to tenants.

It is argued for the respondents that the question in the suit is as to the defendants'' liability to pay and that this has to be determined u/s 41 and involves the question of the defendants status. But it is not their status under the Bengal Tenancy Act that is in question but their status under the Cess Act and their liability u/s 41 must be determined according to the entries in the cess valuation statement. This statement was compiled in the presence of the defendants; and if they were aggrieved at the entry, they ought to have appealed to the Commissioner or to the Board of Revenue as provided by Section 93. Not having done so, they are concluded by the entry in the valuation statement. It is obvious that a great injustice would be done to the plaintiff if the defendants'' contention were to prevail. The plaintiff has been made liable for cess on a valuation of which one of the items is the annual value of the defendants'' tenure. If it were now held that the defendants were not tenure-holders, then the liability for this cess will fall on the plaintiff alone through no fault of his but because the defendants had failed to contest the entry. In my opinion it was for the Revenue authorities to decide whether the defendants were tenure-holders of cultivating raiyats for the purposes of the cess Act and in this matter the entry in the Record of Rights is wholly irrelevant. The status of the defendants under the Bengal Tenancy Act is in no way affected by this valuation which stands by itself and the civil Courts have no jurisdiction to interfere with it.

I would therefore allow this appeal with costs and decree the plaintiff''s suit in full. The plaintiff is entitled to his costs in all the Courts.