Suba Singh vs Kamahshya Narayan Singh

James, J.—This appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent in respect of a mukarrari tenure held under the Ramgarh Estate in Hazaribagh District. After the death of last of the original lessees in 1897, the defendant Suba Singh, who is one of their heirs, continued to occupy the land comprised within the tenure, or a part of it representing his share in the inheritance. In 1907 the zamindar, treating the tenure as having become extinguished by the death of the last of the original lessees, served a notice to quit on Suba Singh. He subsequently instituted a suit for ejectment which failed on the ground that the plaintiff was unable to show that Suba Singh had ever agreed to become his tenant from year to year, and that even if he had succeeded in this, yet the suit was barred by limitation, because the tenancy from year to year would have come to an end in 1907 which was more than 12 years before the date of the institution of the suit. In the meantime the name of Suba Singh had been entered in the Record-of-Rights as that of the holder of a share in an istamrari mukarrari tenure. The suit with which we are here concerned was instituted on the assumption that this share in the mukarrari tenure of Suba Singh''s ancestors was still held by Suba Singh, and that he was liable for the rent of it. Suba Singh denied that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed, but when he was giving evidence he stated that he held the land as a permanent mukarraridar. The Deputy Collector found that he was liable to pay the mukarrari rent; and his decision was affirmed on appeal by the Judicial Commissioner of Chota Nagpur.

Mr. B.C. De on behalf of the appellant argues that when that landlord''s suit in ejectment was dismissed as barred by limitation, the landlord''s interest in the land was entirely extinguished by the operation of Section 28, Lim. Act; and it was not possible for Suba to be in any way a tenant of the Ramgarh Estate. Now, if the defendant had clearly taken the ground that he had acquired the proprietary right in the land, so that he was not a tenant, he might possibly have succeeded, but although he did say in his written statement that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist and although when he began to give evidence he denied that he was liable to pay rent, yet he did afterwards say that he held his share of three annas 17 dams in Kharkia village as a permanent mukarraridar. Now the landlord by his plaint describes Suba Singh as permanent mukarraridar; Suba Singh when he was giving evidence admitted himself to be a permanent mukarraridar, and the Record-of-Rights describes him as a permanent mukarraridar, stating the amount of rent payable. It appears to me that in the circumstances, whatever might have been the grounds on which the suit in ejectment failed, it was reasonable for the Courts below to hold that when the plaintiff by his plaint offered to recognize the permanent right of Suba Singh and when Suba Singh in giving his deposition accepted the position that be was Holding as a permanent mukarraridar, he was bound by that admission; the suit for the arrears of rent was properly decreed. I would accordingly affirm the decision of the lower Court and dismiss the appeal with costs.

Chatterji, J.

I agree.