Moti Lal Ghose and Another vs Bissessur Hazra and Others

This is an appeal from a decision of the District Judge of Burdwan, dated the 1st June 1896. In a zamindari estate there was a putni taluk, a dur-putni taluk and a se-putni taluk. The putni taluk was sold for its own arrears, and under sec. 17 of the Putni Regulation, namely, VIII of 1819, the proceeds were deposited to the name of the putnidar. The dur putnidar, that is, the putnidar of the second degree, had apparently failed to pay his rents and therefore could not participate in the sale-proceeds. The se-putnidars, the present Plaintiffs, brought a suit under Rule 4 of sec. 17 of the Regulation, claiming to have the excess sale-proceeds apportioned and to have such an amount awarded to them as would correspond to the value of their se-putni. Rule 4 runs as follows :--" Any excess that may remain after satisfying the demand of the zemindar, in the manner above described, shall be forthwith, sent by the officer conducting the sale, to the Treasury of the Collector or Assistant Collector of the district, to be there held in deposit to answer the claims of the talukdars of the second degree, or of others who, by assignment of the defaulter, may be at the time in possession of a valuable interest on the land, composing the taluk sold, or on any part of it." In the present ease the defaulter was the talukdar. The talukdar of the second degree was the dur-putnidar, and he, as we have said, is out of Court. The se-putnidar has no assignment from the putnidar, and he is out of that rule.

The result is that this appeal is decreed, the decree of the lower Appellate Court set aside and that of the Court of first instance dismissing the suit affirmed, with costs in all the Courts.