Surat Narain Singh and Others vs Nathuni Rai and Another

Das, J.—The plaintiffs are the appellants. Their suit was for Nagdi and Bhaoli rents. So far as Bhaoli rent is concerned, the defense was that it had been commuted, u/s 40 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, into Nagdi rent and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover the produce rent. The plaintiffs in answer to this plea relied upon the fast that the order u/s 40, Bengal Tenancy Act, was based on a compromise to which they were not parties. The learned Judge in the Court below thinks that this objection is untenable, because in his view the Collector would be justified in commuting the rent at the rate agreed upon between the parties, though some other landlord may not be a party to that petition of compromise. He thinks that the compromise in such a case is simply an admission by some of the landlords as to what would be the proper rent. If the Collector merely acts on that admission, that act cannot be challenged by any other landlord. I am unable to agree with this conclusion. Section 40 provides that an elaborate inquiry is to be held by the officer dealing with the application for commutation. That inquiry was admittedly not held in this case. The tenants say that there was a compromise between the landlord and tenants, but then the plaintiffs were not parties to the compromise. I do not think that any compromise order is admissible in evidence against any person who is not a party to the compromise. The learned Judge says that the compromise is merely an admission by some of the landlords as to what would be the proper rent. Here again I do not agree. Some of the landlords may compromise the matter on grounds other than the ground suggested by the learned Judge. I would allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court and restore the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif. The appellants will be entitled to their costs throughout.