Lokoram, Minor, through Grandmother Mani Kuari vs Bidya Ram Mahto and Another

Coutts, J.—This was a suit for a declaration that certain lands, which were specified in schedules ka and kha of the plaint, were the plaintiff''s raiyati lands and that they were held by the defendant No. 1 as an under-raiyat. The plaintiff''s case was that the Maharaja of Chota Nagpur gave his grandfather Churan Ram a ticca of Mouzah Jamira in which the lands given in schedules ka and kha are situated and that he also gave the plaintiff''s father Madho Ram the lands specified in these schedules as his raiyati holding and that Madho settled these lands with the defendant No. 1 as an under raiyat. The defendants, on the other hand, contend that no raiyati interest was created in Madho Ram and that the settlement with them was a raiyati settlement from the tenure holder. The Court of first instance has found that there was no raiyati interest-created and that the status of the plaintiff is that of a tenure holder and that the defendants are raiyats. The suit was accordingly dismissed and this decision has been upheld on appeal by the Judicial Commissioner. The plaintiff has now appealed to this Court.

The first point which is urged before as is that the learned Judicial Commissioner has approached the case from a wrong point of view, inasmuch as he has stated that the plaintiff asserts that previously the lands had been held by Churan Ram as a raiyati holding, whereas in fact the plaintiff''s case was not that the lands had been held by Churan Ram as his raiyati holding, bat that they had been held by Madho Ram, There is no doubt that the plaintiff''s case originally was, that the land was held by Madho Ram as a raiyati holding and that the Court of first instance found that this was not to, but apparently the case which was placed before the learned Judicial Commissioner was that it was Churan Ram who held these lands as a raiyati holding. In any case, however, there is a distinct finding of fact by both the Courts that there was no raiyati holding at all and that the whole interest that the plaintiff or his predecessor had was that of a tenure-holder. It is, however, urged that even if this be so, the defendants are estopped from denying the plaintiff''s raiyaii interest inasmuch as they executed kabuliyats in the year 1895, 1900 and 1906, in whicht he lands in suit are described as the raiyati lands of plaintiff. The Section of the Evidence Act which refers to estoppel of a tenant is Section 116, which runs as follows:

No tenant of Immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of such tenancy, a title to such Immovable property; and no person who came upon any Immovable property by the license of the person in possession thereof shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to such possession at the time when such license was given.

Now the defendants have never denied the plaintiff''s title, but it has been strenuously urged by Mr. Sushil Madhab Mullick on behalf of the appellant that not only does the Section include denial of title but denial of status. He admits, however, that he can find no authority in support of his contention and, in my opinion, it is untenable. All that the Section refers to is the title of the landlord and not his status, and it is impossible in my opinion to read more into the section. If then there is no estoppel, the whole case is concluded by the finding of fact which has been arrived at by both the Courts below, that neither the plaintiff nor his predecessor had any raiyati interest. Under these circumstances I would dismiss his appeal with costs.

Das, J.

I agree.