Parasnath Verma and Others vs Fauzdar Mahton and Another

Manohar Lall, J.—In this appeal by the plaintiffs which arises out of a suit for recovery of bhaoli rental an interesting question for decision arises, namely, whether the landlord is entitled to claim the price of bhusa and newari apart from the price of paddy and other crops to which he has been held to be entitled. The trial Court on a consideration of the entire evidence in the case came to the conclusion that in the years in suit, the rent claimed lands produced paddy at the rate of nine maunda a bigha, khesari at the rate of three maunds a bigha and gram at the rate of 2� maunds a bigha--all these are in hutcha weights, that is to say, nine paseris kutcha was taken as equivalent to one maund pucca. The sale rate was directed to be calculated according to the Gazette rate, but in case the Gazette was silent, the rate given in the plaint was to prevail. The landlord was allowed 9/20ths share out of this.

The learned Munsif disallowed the claim of bhusa and newari on the ground that no custom to that effect has been proved by the plaintiff and further that the law did not give any help to the appellant either. Reference was made to Section 178B, Tenancy Act, before the learned Munsif, but he overruled the argument on the ground that in that section there was no mention that the tenants were to divide the bhusa and newari also. Accordingly the claim for bhusa and newari was disallowed. In appeal by the landlords the learned Additional Subordinate Judge characterised the claim as of a novel nature and observed that the pleader who appeared on behalf of the tenants stated that during the whole of his forty years'' practice at the bar he had not come across a claim of this nature in bhaoli suits and then proceeded to observe:

In bhaoli suits, claim is made in respect of actual produce only and it is not the practice to claim a share of the Bhusa and Newari also. The learned pleader for the appellants contends that Bhusa and Newariaie also included in the word produce and the landlord should be given a decree for his 9/20ths share out of Bhusa and Newaii also. I do not think that the word produce includes Bhusa and Newari also, but I must confess that the point raised on behalf of the appellants is not free from doubt.

The learned Judge, however, thought that in the present case the matter was concluded by the record of rights which indicated that the landlord was entitled to get a share out of the galla, that is to say, out of the grains, and, therefore,

it is clear that the landlord is entitled to get a share out of the actual grains which are produced on the lands. In the khatian the word Bhaoli danabandi also finds place which also indicates that only the Dana (grains) were to be divided.

Accordingly he affirmed the judgment of the learned Munsif, Hence the appeal to this Court. As the point raised is interesting and no reported decision of this Court has been brought to our notice, we took time to consider our judgment. In my opinion, the actual wordings of Sections 178A and 178B, Bihar Tenancy Act, inserted in the year 1987 help to solve the problem. By Section 178A it is now provided that the landlord notwithstanding any contract express or implied between him and his raiyat either before or after the commencement of the amending Act of 1937 shall not be entitled to:

rent on the estimated value of the whole or a portion of the crop or on the estimated produce of the whole or a portion of the holding of the raiyat according to he system commonly known as danabandi.

By Sub-clause (2) it is provided that the raiyat will henceforth "be liable to pay to the landlord rent in kind by division of the produce of the holding". Section 178B merely fixes the proportion of the produce which the landlord is entitled to get from the raiyat, that is to say 9/20ths of the produce. It will be noticed that the important words used in these two sections are "the produce of the holding of the raiyat." The raiyat is no longer liable to pay rent to the landlord on any estimated value of the crop or on any estimated produce of the land as used to be done under the danabandi system. The danabandi system was thus abrogated and a clear indication was given by the Legislature as to how the rights of the parties are henceforth to be worked out. The landlord, therefore, in my opinion, is entitled to 9/20ths of the produce and not merely of the grain. The produce in the present case must mean the actual produce removed from the land before the agricultural operations are completed in order to separate the newari and the bhusa from the grains. In estimating the value of the 9/20ths share of the plaintiff he is entitled to have a value put upon that share not only for the paddy but also for the bhusa and newari after making an allowance for the expenses in husking and thrashing. In practice the value of the share of the plaintiff in the crops should be fixed at a lump sum per maund for the crops after the yield has been estimated by the Court of fact.

In the present case we have no materials to show what the value of the newari and bhusa would be after working the figures out on the basis indicated above. In order to save a remand, I would direct that the decree in favour, of the plaintiffs be amended by making a further addition at the rate of Re. 1, per pucca maund to the figure arrived at by the trial Court to each kind of crop. It was argued on behalf of the respondent that in the present case the entry in the record of rights should be respected with the result that the plaintiffs should be (sic) entitled only to the value of the galla. I (sic) unable to agree with this argument because (sic) pointed out above the contract between (sic) parties as evidenced by the record of rights that the landlord would be entitled to rent on the estimated value of the crop is now abrogated by Section 178-A, Sub-clause (1), Bihar Tenancy Act. For these reasons, the appeal must be allowed but only to the extent indicated above. In the circumstances each party will bear his own costs of this Court.

Imam, J.

I agree.