Lal Ballabh Nath Sah Deo and Others vs Maulavi Habibur Rahman and Others

Manohar Lall, J.—This appeal is against a decision of the Additional Judicial Commissioner of Ranchi passed in a rent suit. The suit was instituted before a Bent Suit Deputy Collector on 25th March 1936 for recovery of arrears of rent for the years 1989 to 1992 Sambat from defendants 1, 2 and 3 who were the original tenure-holders of khewat No. 3/1. In accordance with the procedure which apparently prevails in those Courts, the plaint was transferred to be tried by the Subdivisional Officer of Gumla by Letter No. 5254-R, dated 23rd July 1936, which stated that the case was being forwarded for favour of disposal as the villages were within the jurisdiction of the Subdivisional Officer of Gumla. On 27th July 1936 notice was issued to the plaintiffs and summons was issued to the defendants.

On 26th August 1936, the tenure, holder of khewat No. 3/2 was added at the request of the plaintiffs (this tenure-holder was defendant 4) and defendant 5, the purchaser of the interest of defendant 2 was added on his own application. It will be noticed therefore that it was when these two persons, namely defendants 4 and 5, were brought on the record that the tenure was represented in its entirety before the Bent Suit Officer. At that time the period of limitation for recovery of arrears of rent for 1989 Sambat had elapsed.

Therefore, it was contended in the Courts below, as it was contended before me, by the appellants that a decree for arrears of rent for the year 1989 Sambat ought not to have been passed by the Courts below. The matter was agitated before the learned Deputy Commissioner, but he overruled the contention on the ground that the tenure-holders of khewats 3/1 and 3/2 were jointly liable to pay rent to the plaintiffs and he was also of opinion that the question whether the decree was a rent decree or a money decree should be left to be agitated in the execution department.

I think that after the decision of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in Jagdishwar Dayal Singh v. Dwarka Singh (''33) 20 AIR 1988 PC 122 which was followed in Manki Kank Ratan Vs. Sundarmunda and Others, it was not open to the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner to adopt the course he did. In Chota Nagpur, when a rent suit is brought, the Revenue Officer''s jurisdiction to pass a rent decree and therefore to order a sale of the holding or tenure arises only if the holding or tenure as the Case may be is properly represented. For these reasons the decree of the learned Judicial Commissioner is varied by dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for 1989 Sambat. In other respects there will be a decree in favour of the plaintiffs to be calculated at the rate of rent claimed for the years 1990, 1991 and 1992 Sambat.

The appellants are entitled to costs proportionate to the amount for which they have been declared not liable in all the Courts. The plaintiffs are entitled to costs, in proportion to the amount to which they have been ultimately found to be entitled, but only in the Courts below.