Bindu Bashini Dasi vs Peari Mohun Bose and Others

Pigot and Banerjee, JJ.—The question raised in this appeal is whether the plaintiff, who is a fractional co-sharer in the superior tenure, is entitled to maintain this suit for rent in respect of her share under the terms of the lease by which the tenancy was created.

The lease provides as follows:

After the land in question is fully brought under cultivation you shall pay rent without default, according to kists, year after year, as per measurement and jamabandi, at the said rate of Company''s 10 annas and 10 gundas for the quantity of land that will be left after deducting beds of khals, pasture lands, lands unfit for cultivation, places of worship, hajats, pujai basha batis, and your remuneration for reclamation upon measurement of all the lands by the standard rod used in the abads of the said taluk. On no account shall any larger amount be demanded.

This shows that after the land in question is fully brought under cultivation there shall be a measurement and an adjustment of the rent after allowing certain deductions, finally and once for all; and after that there shall be no further change in the rent. The plaintiff''s case evidently is that that state of things has arisen, namely, that the land has been fully brought under cultivation and there has been a measurement, and the plaintiff, the time for the final adjustment having now arrived or being now passed, asks for an adjustment of the rent. But her co-sharers have not joined her as plaintiff''s, and she asks for adjustment of rent in respect of her share only. The adjusting of rent claimed in this suit cannot therefore be the final adjustment contemplated by the lease, as the plaintiff''s co-sharers might hereafter bring a suit and succeed in obtaining a different adjustment if separate suits are allowed. It is not necessary to consider whether this is, as has been held by the Lower Appellate Court, a suit u/s 7 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. We think that under the terms of the lease the final adjustment of rent therein contemplated can be obtained only by a suit brought by all the landlords, or by a suit by some of them if the others refuse to join, but in that case the suit must be for the adjustment of the entire rent, and all the necessary parties must be properly before the Court. For the above reason we think the suit has been properly dismissed, and we dismiss this appeal with costs.