Padmanand Singh and Others vs Parmeswar Pertab Singh and others

Appeal from a decree (19th May 1885) of a Divisional Bench of the High Court, affirming a decree (31st Deoember 1883) of the Subordinate Judge of Bhagulpur. 2. The suit out of which this appeal arose was brought by the respondents, who were zemindars of Kharagpur in the Bhagulpur district, to recover possession of a mouzah of which a mokurari lease had been made in 1853 to one Teknarain Singh. He died in 1881, and this suit was brought against his sons, who were in possession, and who alleged that the tenancy was hereditary. 3. The second Subordinate Judge of Bhagulpur, holding that, upon the terms of the pottah of 1853, it was one only for the life of Teknarain Singh, decreed the claim in favour of the plaintiffs. 4. On appeal a Divisional Bench of the High Court (Tottennham and Agnew, JJ.) gave judgment as follows:

There are no words whatever in this pottah which would import any hereditary interest; and it has been held frequently that the word "mokurari" alone does not import any thing more than fixed rent. It has been urged upon us on behalf of the appellant that we must look to the circumstances of the case, and not only to the document. The circumstances set up for the defence were, that the mouzah in question was formerly a ghatwali tenure. Therefore by its nature it was in fact a hereditary tenure, and the ghatwals or their descendants could not be ejected. The ghatwali estate was sold for arrears of Government revenue in 1838, and was purchased by the present plaintiffs'' predecessor. The purchaser brought suits to set aside encumbrances, and, amongst others, the ghatwals were sued. Teknarain appears to have been one of those tenants who were sued for the setting aside of his tenure. He pleaded that he was a ghatwal. The suit, however, was to set aside the sunnud on which his title was based, and there was no admission, nor was there any finding that Teknarain was a ghatwal at all. It appears that he compromised the suit, and permitted a decree against him on the condition of receiving the lease which is now in question. The learned Advocate-General has contended that if this compromise was brought about through ignorance, on the part of Teknarain, of his position under the law, it should not be held to bind him; and it is argued that, at any rate, the tenure having been held by him and his predecessors for a long series of years, it is not likely that he would, without consideration, consent to give up his position altogether and take a lease for his own life. We cannot, however, say that Teknarain was ignorant of his position under the law. He well knew what his position was, for he set up a ghatwali title in the very suit in which he entered into this compromise. It is quite possible that he felt that his case was a precarious one, and that it would be better than having a decree ousting him from this tenure, to enter into a compromise by which he could secure his tenancy for his own life. We think, therefore, that we must hold that the lower Court put a right construction upon this pottah, and that there are no circumstances which would warrant the Court to decline to give effect to that document as it stands. This being so, the suit was rightly decreed. 5. For the appellants, Mr. J.D. Mayne submitted that there was nothing in the terms of the lease inconsistent with a permanent tenure, and that the lease and compromise must be construed with reference to the asserted ghatwali tenure. 6. Mr. C.W. Arathoon, for the respondents, was not called upon. 7. Sir B. Peacock delivered their Lordships'' judgment to the effect that they concurred in the construction put upon the pottah by the High Court.