Rajendra Narayan Sing Deo and Others vs Mahesh Chandra Chatterji

Ross, J.—This is an appeal by the Defendants. The Plaintiff purchased part of a holding of one Mangaram in mauza Haraktore, of which the Defendants are the patnidars, on the 6th of Baisakh 1808. The landlords brought a suit for rent against the original tenant Behari the son of Mangaram in 1919 and got a decree and sold the holding which was purchased by the decree-holders. The Plaintiff then deposited the amount of she decree and wanted the sale to be set aside. The Defendants objected and the Plaintiff''s petition was dismissed for default and the Defendant got possession. The Plaintiff then brought this suit for a declaration that the rent decree was fraudulent. The point of the Plaintiff''s case was that on a previous occasion when there bad been a decree for rent in 1912, he had deposited the amount of the decree and the amount had been withdrawn by the landlords. The learned Subordinate Judge has fallen the view that this withdrawal of the amount of the deposit amounted to a recognition of the Plaintiff as a cotenant of the holding.

The contention on behalf of the Appellant is that the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act is silent en the question whether the purchaser of a part of a holding is not debarred from making a deposit; and that no inference can be drawn from the deposit, and the landlord is entitled to accept the money so deposited without losing his rights and that his acceptance does not involve recognition. In my opinion this argument is without substance. The landlord accepted the Plaintiff''s money which was put into Court after the rent decree had been obtained. It is therefore no longer open to him to say that he did not recognise the Plaintiff as co-tenant of the holding. The subsequent rent suit of 19.1.9 to which the Plaint it was not a party cannot therefore have any effect on his interest in this holding. The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Sen, J.

I agree.