Moheshwar Singh vs Jageshwar Singh and Others

Kulwant Sahay, J.—These appeals arise out of six suits instituted by the plaintiff-appellant for realization of arrears of rent and for ejectment of the defendants from their holdings. The plaintiff''s case was that the defendants in each of the six suits were given settlement of separate pieces of land under certain kabuliats; that they had defaulted payment of rent for the years 1332 to the 12 annas kist of 1335; that as they were temporary tenants and had made default in payment of rent, they were liable to ejectment.

The claim therefore was for arrears of rent for the years indicated above and for ejectment of the defendants. The defence of the defendants was that although separate kabuliats were execrated by the defendants in the six suits, yet as a matter of fact the entire area covered by all the six suits, namely 97 bighas odd, was settled only with one of the defendants Sadho Singh who was the defendant in suit No. 3234 of 1928 which has given rise to Second Appeal No. 192 of 1931, and that the other defendants executed kabuliats merely as benamidars for Sadho Singh; that Sadho Singh got a permanent settlement under the kabuliats and not a temporary settlement. They further alleged that on account of interference on the part of the plaintiff, the tenants were unable to cultivate the land peacefully in the years in suit and that therefore there ought to be a suspension of rent in respect of all the years in suit.

The Munsif found that the settlements were separately made with each of the defendants in each of the suits and that it had not been established that there was one settlement in respect of all the lands constituting one holding of Sadho Singh, the defendant in one of these suits. He further found that the evidence on the record was not sufficient to show that the holdings were subsequently consolidated with the consent of the landlord. This finding of the Munsif has been affirmed by the learned District Judge on appeal.

The result therefore is that the holdings in dispute were separate holdings and not one holding. On the question of ejectment both the Courts below have found that the settlement was not a temporary settlement and therefore the defendants are not liable to ejectment for non-payment of rent. This point has not been seriously pressed in these second appeals. The third point was the question as regards the suspension of rent. Both the Courts below have held that on account of the acts of the plaintiff, the defendants were unable to be in peaceful possession of the land and therefore there ought to be suspension of rent. The evidence on the record mentioned in the judgments of both the Courts below goes clearly to prove that there was interference on the part of the plaintiff which would entitle the defendants to claim suspension of rent.

It appears that; on account of some cattle of the defendants having trespassed upon the land of other tenants of the plaintiff, those tenants complained to the landlord with the result that the patwari of the landlord sent for the patwari of Sadho Singh, the defendant, and committed various acts of interference. There were several criminal proceedings under Sections 144 and 145, Criminal P.C. There was also a murder case against Sadho Singh and others. Both the Courts below have held that all these related to the dispute between the defendants and the plaintiff in respect of the holdings in dispute. There was therefore clear ground made out by the defendants for suspension of rent. The only question upon which the Courts below have differed is as regards the period during which suspension of rent should be allowed.

It appears that there was a proceeding u/s 145, Criminal P.C., which was started in November 1924. There was then the murder case against Sadho Singh which was started in March 1925. The lands which formed the subject matter of the proceedings u/s 145, Criminal P.C., were attached by the criminal Court in May 1925. Sadho Singh and others, the accused persons in she murder case, were acquitted on 17th December 1925. The attachment of the lands in the proceedings u/s 145 was withdrawn on 27th October 1927. The Munsif came to the finding that the acts of interference on the part of the plaintiff which would entitle the defendants to claim suspension of rent terminated with the acquittal of the accused persons in the murder case which was as I have said on 17th December 1925; and the Munsif was of opinion that the defendants were not entitled to claim suspension of rent after that date.

The learned District Judge however was of opinion that the suspension of rent should continue up to the withdrawal of the attachment u/s 145, Criminal P.C. i.e., up to 27th October 1927. While the Munsif gave the plaintiff a decree for rent for the period for the 8 annas kist for 1333 to 12 annas kist for 1335, the learned District Judge gave the plaintiff a decree only for the 8 annas kist of 1335. On this point I am of opinion that the view taken by neither of the Courts below can be supported. It is true that after the acquittal of the accused persons in the murder case there was no act of interference on the part of the plaintiff which would entitle the defendants to claim suspension of rent, except the fact of the continuance of the attachment in the proceedings u/s 145.

We have therefore to find out what was the subject-matter of the proceedings u/s 145 or what was the land which was attached in that proceeding. Neither of the Courts below have come to any clear finding on this point. It has been found by both the Courts below that the holdings, the subject-matter of these suits, were separate holdings, so that the interference on the part of the plaintiff as regards one of the holdings will not entitle the defendants in the other holdings to claim suspension of rent. The findings of fact arrived at by both the Courts below would entitle all the defendants in the six suits to claim suspension up to 17th December 1925 but after that period it is only the tenant whose holding was attached in the proceeding u/s 145 who can claim suspension of rent.

The learned District Judge has himself pointed out that the Courts should be very careful in applying the rule of suspension of rent which can only be allowed in exceptional cases, and unless the defendants make out a strong case of suspension of rent such suspension ought not to be allowed, in the present case. The learned advocates on both the sides agree that there is nothing on the record to show that the lands comprised in the holdings of the tenants other than Sadho Singh formed the subject matter of the proceedings u/s 145. Under the circumstances the view taken by the Munsif would be correct in so far as the suits other than the suits against Sadho Singh were concerned. But as regards Sadho Singh who was a party in the proceeding u/s 145, although we do not know what was the subject-matter of this proceeding, yet having regard to the fact that Sadho Singh was a party in the proceeding, it is presumed that his holding or at least a part of it did form the subject-matter of the proceeding u/s 145. Therefore he will be entitled to suspension of rent up to the withdrawal of the attachment in October 1927.

The result is that the decree of the District Judge will be modified in this respect that the decree of the Munsif in the suits other than suit No. 3239 will be restored and the decree of the District Judge will be affirmed in suit No. 3239. The appellant is entitled to his costs in this Court and in the lower appellate Court against the respondents in appeals other than appeal No. 192. In appeal No. 192 the respondent is entitled to his costs as against the appellant, appeal No. 192 being dismissed.