Pradhan Majhi vs Satrughan Singh and Another

Macpherson, J.—These applications in revision are preferred from a decision of the Deputy Commissioner of Manbhum in appeal u/s 218(1), Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, from decrees of the Bent Suit Deputy Collector in rent suits for the years 1332 to three-quarters of 1334 B.S. of value under Rs. 100. The petitioner had been made a party under the provisions of Section 177 of the Act as the third person to whom the defendants alleged that they had paid the rent in good faith before and up to the time of the institution of the suits.

The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the defendants had actually paid their rents for the period in suit to the petitioner in good faith.

On appeal the Deputy Commissioner held that the plea of payment taken by the raiyats-defendants was not bona fide and decreed the suits.

In revision it is urged by Mr. Jyotirmoy Chatterji, first, that the learned Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to determine the appeals of the unsuccessful plaintiff inasmuch as a title to land or some interest in land as between parties having conflicting claims thereto having been determined by the judgment, the appeal lay under Sections 218 and 224 to the Judicial Commissioner and, secondly, that if the appeal lay to the Deputy Commissioner he acted with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction.

Reference has been made to the decisions in Lackminarain v. Thakurhari Dutta [1919] 4 Pat. L.J. 163 and in Janki Chowdhury and Another Vs. Sambodh Kurmi and Others, the first of which was followed and the second distinguished by me in (Baxi) Deoraj Tewari and Others Vs. Indrasan Tewari, and to Munshi Lal Chaudhuri v. Nidhi Ram Dutta [1920] 3 U.P.L.R. 13.

Now Section 177, Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act directs that the suit shall be decided according to the result of an inquiry into the question of the actual payment of the rent to the third person in good faith. I respectfully agree with the decision in Lachminarain Agarwala v. Thakurhari Dutta [1919] 4 Pat. L.J. 163, and hold that no question of title to and interest in the land on which the alleged arrear of rent accrued can at all arise in a decision u/s 177. If such a question be in fact determined, the decision can only be incidental and it would accordingly not affect the forum of appeal.

But apart from that, in the present case the learned Deputy Collector, though he came to a decision on the question of title as between the plaintiff and the third party, expressly stated that it was a side issue and that he left it open. He expressly decided the case on the consideration that the raiyats-defendants had paid their rents for the period in suit bona fide to the third party indeed doing so in continuation of the result of a rent suit against them for rent up to the middle of 1331. Accordingly as no question of title was decided the appeals-certainly lay to the Deputy Commissioner and he did not act without jurisdiction in hearing and determining them This case in this respect is on all fours with Madho Dass v. Kunta Kuary (supra).

As to the second point, the Deputy Commissioner does begin by pointing out that the plaintiff had first obtained a declaration from the civil Court of his right to have proper rents assessed on the lands whereon the arrears of rent in suit had arisen, and the Rent Suit Deputy Collector had on 9th. February 1925 assessed fair rents in his favour on the lands making them payable from the beginning of 1332 B.S.(sic) Hi .did that as the defendants had been ordered to pay their rents to the plaintiff (sic) had no right to pay to anybody else, so that the plea of payment failed. Ha then found that the plea of payment was not bona fide, moaning thereby that the raiyats if they paid had not done so bona fide. It is urged that the appellate Court has failed to consider that the petitioner''s suit against, the raiyats claiming that their holdings were in the petitioner''s village of Raidih, was decreed in presence of the plaintiff on 17th January 1925.

But that is not the whole account of the matter. The plot number of Raidih was not given in the petitioner''s plaint and the answer of the present plaintiff who was a party to that rent suit, was that he had no concern with Raidih but that if the lands were those of his village Kesakocha, then the defendants were his raiyats. The defendant raiyats also acquiesced in the claim. To my mind there, was no material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction by the Deputy Commissioner. Whether his decision was correct is not a matter which this Court has jurisdiction to determine.

Both points fail and these rules must be discharged with costs.