Captain Maharaj Kumar Gopal Saran Narayan Singh vs Deonandan Mahton and Others

Das, J.—I have no doubt whatever that the decision of the Court below is erroneous and that it ought to be set aside.

The appellant presented certain applications u/s 69 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for appraisement of crops and for ascertainment of the liability of the tenants for rent. It is not necessary to trace the history of the disputes, but it appears that the Amin''s report was not accepted by the tenants and thereupon the Sub-Divisional Officer in charge of the case intimated to the parties that he would himself go to the locality and appraise the crops. But before he could arrive on the scene the crops were removed by the tenants. Thereupon the question arose as to the basis on which the tenants'' liability should be determined. Ultimately the learned Sub-Divisional Officer passed an order on the 3rd of February, 1922, approving the khasra prepared by the Amin. If that date be regarded as the date of the final order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, then it is conceded that the present applications for execution of the decrees are barred by limitation.

But the difficulty is that the Amin''s khasra does not on the face of it disclose the monetary extent of the liability of the tenants to the landlord. It does indeed show the amount of produce per bigha of the land in respect of which rent was claimed, but the decision of the question as to produce by no means decides the cases between the parties. There were other outstanding questions between the parties, for instance, what was the landlord''s share and, secondly, what money value should be put upon the produce. These questions were not determined on the 3rd of February, 1922. On the 1st of November, 1922, however, a final order was drawn up by the Court which showed the quantity of crops, the selling rates of the crops and the actual amount of money recoverable by the landlord as against each of the tenants. It is not disputed that if the 1st of November, 1922, be regarded as the date of the final order of the Revenue Court, then the applications for execution presented on behalf of the decree-holder must be regarded as within time. The Courts below have taken the view that the 3rd of February, 1922, must be regarded as the date of the final order. In my opinion, the test is this whether the order of the 3rd of February, 1922, has complete finality and is enforceable as a decree. If the Revenue Court had transmitted the order passed by it on the 3rd of February, 1922, to the Civil Court the Civil Court could not, in my judgment, have executed that order. I quite agree that if all the data for ascertainment of the liability of each of the tenants to the landlord could be found on the face of the order of the 3rd of February, 1922, that order could be regarded as a final order although the actual liability of each of the tenants might not have been worked out in detail, but that is not the case here. So far as this case is concerned, the liability could not be worked out on the basis of the Amin''s khasra until certain other matters which were outstanding between the parties had been worked out. In my opinion, the order of the 1st of November, 1922, must be regarded as the final order and limitation would run from that date.

I would allow these appeals, set aside the orders passed by the Courts below and direct that execution do proceed. The appellant is entitled to his costs throughout.

Adami, J.

I agree.