AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Das, J.—These appeals can be disposed of on a point which is as short as it is clear. It is alleged that the predecessors in interest of the appellants purchased the holdings in execution of rent decrees in 15-67 under Act X of 1859. The question is, what exactly did they purchase in 1867? Now it seems to me that they could not have purchased the right of occupancy of the raiyats. Now whatever the position may be under the Bengal Tenancy Act, a right of occupancy under Act X of 1859 was a personal right, a right, to quote the words of Couch, C.J., in Nurendra Narain Roy v. Ishan Chunder Sen 22 W.R. 22 : 18 B.L.R. 274, "to be enjoyed only by the person who holds or cultivates and pays the rent, and has done so for a period of twelve years." As Couch, C.J., said in the case sited, ''it," namely, the Act, "does not speak of his acquiring a right which he might, having acquired it, transfer or make use of as subject of property, but it seems intended to secure to a raiyat who has cultivated or held for twelve years a continuance of his cultivation or holding so long as he pays the rent."
What was it, then, that the predecessors-in-interest of the appellants purchased? Not the right of occupancy, which was a right personal to the raiyat which the raiyat could not transfer or make use of as subject of property, but a right which might eventually grow into a right of occupancy had the purchasers been free to bold the land purchased as raiyats. But that position was not available to the predecessors-in-interest of the appellants, as it is admitted that the appellants and their predesessors-in-interest have, all along and up to a period within twelve years of suit, been in possession as the thikadars of the mouza where the lands in dispute are situate. Unless, therefore, they purchased the right of occupancy of their predecessors-in-title, and I hold that they could not have done so, it was impossible for them as thikadars to acquire a right of occupancy as against the proprietors.
I would dismiss these appeals with costs.
The cross-appeals were not pressed.
Ross, J.
I agree.