Motilal Singh and Others vs Sheik Omar Ali and Others

This is an appeal from the decision of the District Judge of Purneah, dated the 24th March 1896. The points raised in this appeal are two: (1) whether the Plaintiffs who are se-putnidars are entitled to sue the. Defendants who are dur-putnidars to compel them to register their names in their sherista as transferees of the se-putni tenure, and (2) whether the Appellants are entitled to demand security from the Plaintiffs as a condition precedent to the registration of their names.

The first of these pleas raises a question of much importance. It is clear from the ruling of this Court in the case of Ambika Pershad v. chowdhry Keshri sahai I. L. R. 24 Cal. 642, that such a suit is not maintainable under the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The question then arises whether it is maintainable under the provisions of the Putni Regulation (VIII of 1819) or of any other statute. On the whole we are of opinion it is not. There is no section in Regulation VIII of 1819 expressly giving a se-putnidar a right to compel his superior talukdar to register his name or a right of suit in case of his refusal to do so. We do not think that secs. 5 and 6 of that Regulation give the Plaintiff any such right, the word "putnidar " in these sections in our opinion not including a se-putnidar and the words "other superior" not being applicable to a dur-putnidar. Under the former rentlaw, a se-putnidar or other dependent talukdar had a right to compel his. superior to register his name in his sherista under sec. 27 of Act X of 1859 and sec. 26 of Act VIII, B. C, of. 1859, but not under the Putni Regulation, Under the former Act the dependent talukdar could apply to the Collector in case of the superior tenant''s refusal to register his name. Under the latter Act, it would appear he might bring a suit in the Civil Court. However this may be, both these Acts have now been repealed in Bengal, and therefore it appears to us the Plaintiff has now no right to bring such a suit as the present, and as he cannot bring such a suit under the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act, this appeal must be decreed and the suit dismissed on this ground.

It was no doubt open to the Plaintiff to sue for a declaration of his right as the Defendant''s tenant, but he has not framed his suit in this way. We accordingly decree the appeal with costs in all Courts.