Rajeshwar Prasad, Son of Late Harihar Prasad v. Both are resident of village
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Second Appeal No.475 of 1991 =================================================== 1. Ram Singar Prasad, Son of Late Sukal Prasad. 2. Dulari Devi, Wife of Late Ram Bilash Prasad. 3. Awadhesh Singh, Son of Late Ram Bilash Prasad. 4. Sabitri Kumari, Minor daughter of Late Shri Ram Builash Prasad under guardianship of her mother. All Resident of village-Peuli, P.S.-Mirganj, District-Gopalganj. 5. Geeta Devi, Daughter of Late Ram Bilash Prasad and wife of Shri Ramjee Singh, Resident of Village- Nauranga, P.S.- Tarwara, District-Siwan. 6. Sita Devi, Daughter of Late Ram Bilash Prasad and wife of Sheo Nath Singh, Resident of Village- Babhandi, P.S.-Mirganj, District- Gopalganj. .... .... Appellants. 1. Bacha Prasad, Son of late Harihar Prasad. 2. Rajeshwar Prasad, Son of Late Harihar Prasad. Versus Both are resident of village-Peuli, P.S.- Mirganj, P.O.- Peuli, District-Gopalganj.----------Plaintiff/Respondents/Respondents. ================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Braj Nandan Singh, Adv. Mr. Pramod Rajpati, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vishambhar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Pramod Rajpati, Adv.
Legal Reasoning
================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 08-01-2013 V.Nath, J. This appeal by the defendants has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 28.08.1991 passed by Additional District Judge III, Gopalganj in Rent Appeal No. 01/76 affirming the judgment and decree dated 16.02.1976 passed by Munsif, Gopalganj in Rent Suit No.04/72. 2. The Rent Suit No.04/72 was filed for recovery of Rs. 530/- 2 Patna High Court SA No.475 of 1991 dt.08-01-2013 2 / 6 as rent. The plaintiffs have come out with the case that the defendants have been Sikmidars over the lands of Khata No.7 and Khata No.19 over an area of 1 Bigha, 9 Katha, 12 Dhurs and 1 Bigha, 12 Katha respectively prior to its purchase by the plaintiffs and they had been paying rent to the vendors of the plaintiffs and the rent was being paid by way of ‘Manhoonda’. The refusal by the defendants to pay ‘Manhoonda’ for the year 1377-78 Fasli has led the plaintiffs to file the suit and the prayer has been made for recovery of Rs. 530/- as rent. 3. The defendants in the written statement have admitted that they are Sikmidar over the land purchased by the plaintiffs. They have further accepted that they have been paying rent in cash and not by way of ‘Manhoonda’. The defendants have also expressed their readiness to pay the rent for the years as claimed by the plaintiffs. 4. The trial court after scrutinizing the pleadings and evidence of the parties has come to the finding that although the plaintiff’s version of liability of the defendants to pay Manhoonda rent for the suit property to the plaintiffs is established but still in view of the provision of Section 48(B) of the B.T.Act, the plaintiffs are not entitled to get Manhoonda rent and are only entitled to get rent in kind by division of produce. The trial court has further come to the finding that the plaintiffs are entitled to get 7/20th share in the produce 3 Patna High Court SA No.475 of 1991 dt.08-01-2013 3 / 6 for two years as claimed, at the rate of Rs.18/- per month according to Kachha weight. 5. In appeal by the defendants the appellate court took into notice the admitted fact that the defendants were Sikimidars over the land of the plaintiffs and were paying rent to the Vendors of the plaintiffs and were ready to pay rent to the plaintiffs. It, therefore, refused to accept the contention raised on behalf of the defendants for the first time in appeal that they were no more under raiyats and acquired the status of raiyat under the State of Bihar. The appellate court below thereafter took into notice the provision of Section 48A and 48 B of the B.T.Act providing for payment of rent by an under raiyat in kind by division of the produce upto the 7/20th share of the total produce, and in view of the evidence regarding the yield of the land, it has affirmed the findings of the trial court. 6. At the time of admission of this appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been framed:- (I) Whether in view of Section 48B of the B.T.Act, defendants are liable to pay Mahhunda rent to the plaintiffs and therefore in that view of the matter whether the judgments and decrees of the court below are sustainable in law? (II) Whether in view of Section 48C of the B.T.Act the 4 Patna High Court SA No.475 of 1991 dt.08-01-2013 4 / 6 plaintiffs are liable to receive the Manhunda rent from the Sikmidars-defendants? 7. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in view of the provision of Section 48B of the B.T.Act the defendants are not liable to pay Manhunda rent to the plaintiffs. It has been also submitted by the learned counsel that there is no evidence on record to come to the finding regarding the yield of the property in possession of the defendants as Sikmidars. It has been thus contended that the findings in that regard by both the courts below is not sustainable. 8. From the perusal of the judgments of both the courts below, it is manifest that the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants had been paying rent in kind has been believed on the basis of the entries in the survey khatian (Sikmii Khata No.7 and 19) where the mode of payment of rent by way of ‘Manhoonda’ has been specifically mentioned. Further the receipts produced by the defendants as Ext.A series have also been relied upon where the word ‘galla’ (meaning ‘produce) has been mentioned. After appreciation evidence, it has been concluded that the defendants had been paying rent in kind and not in cash as claimed. Both the courts below have thereafter taken into notice Section 48B of the B.T.Act as well as Section 48A of the said Act and thereafter have come to the finding 5 Patna High Court SA No.475 of 1991 dt.08-01-2013 5 / 6 that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover rent by way of realizing only 7/20th of the produce of the land in possession of the defendants as Sikmidars. Therefore in absence of any finding upholding the right of the plaintiffs to realize Manhunda rent, from the defendants, the first substantial questions of law, as framed, is decided against the appellants. On behalf of the appellants, nothing could be pointed out under the B.T.Act by which the plaintiffs would be disentitled to realize the rent from the defendants who have admitted themselves to be Sikmidars of the plaintiffs for his lands. The reliance, however, has been placed upon Section 48C of the B.T.Act but it only deals with the acquisition of right of occupancy by an under Raiyat who remains in possession of the land as under Raiyat for continuous 12 months. There is nothing in the said provision which will exonerate the Sikmidars from the liability to pay rent to his landlord. As such the second substantial question of law as framed is also decided against the appellants. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has lastly submitted that there was no sufficient evidence to support the finding regarding the yield of the land in possession of the defendants. From the perusal of the judgments of both the courts below it appears that the said finding has been recorded after consideration of evidence on record. The reappreciation of evidence at the second appellate jurisdiction is not 6 Patna High Court SA No.475 of 1991 dt.08-01-2013 6 / 6 permissible unless the findings are shown to be perverse in any manner. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. The impugned judgments and decree of the appellate court below is upheld. Nitesh/- (V. Nath, J)