High Court
Case Details
RSA 105/2001 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral)
Legal Reasoning
This appeal, by the plaintiff, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17th May, 2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barpeta in Title Appeal No.1/1999, dismissing the appeal preferred by the present appellant and affirming the judgment and decree dated 10th July, 1998 passed by the learn ed Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bajali in Title Suit No.14/1997, whereby and wh ereunder the plaintiff’s suit was partly decreed. [2] The plaintiff instituted the suit against the predecessor-in-int erest of the present respondents, namely, Hangsha Kalita, praying for realizatio n of Rs.6330/-, being the value of 54 Mounds of paddy towards the rent for the y ears 1987, 1988 and 1989, contending inter alia that though a tenancy between th e appellant and the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents in respec t of the land was created with condition that the defendant would pay 1/5th of t he crop grown as annual rent, the same has not been given by the defendant to th e plaintiff in those years. It has also been contended that under the said cont ract, the plaintiff is entitled to 2 Mounds of paddy or its value per Bigha per year and hence is entitled to the value of 54 Mounds of paddy @ Rs.110/- per Mou nds. [3] The suit of the plaintiff has been contested by the defendant co ntending inter alia that the total production of paddy during the three years be ing 90 Mounds, the plaintiff is entitled to the value of only 18 Mounds of paddy , being 1/5th of the crop grown and hence, the plaintiff would be entitled to Rs .1404/- @ Rs.78/- per Mound. [4] e following issues for determination: Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed th (cid:28)(1) Whether there is cause of action for the suit? (2) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? (3) Whether the suit is barred by law of res-judicata? (4) Whether the defendant No.1 is defaulter in respect of January? (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to realise 3 monds of paddy per bigha fro m the defendant as rent of the land and if his is entitled to realise Rs.6,330/- as arrear rent for the period of 1394, 1395 and 1396 B.S. i.e. 1987, 1988 and 1 989 according to English Calendar year? (6) Whether the defendant has changed the nature of tenanted land rendering it f or unfit for tenancy? (7) Whether the plaintiff needs the land for his bonafide use? (8) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for? (9) To what relief or reliefs the parties are entitled under the law and facts? The trial Court, based on the evidence adduced by the parties, p [5] artly decreed the suit of the plaintiff by holding that the defendant is a defau lter in respect of payment of annual rent for the years 1987; 1988 and 1989. It has further been held that the defendant, for the said years, were liable to gi ve 31‰ Mounds of paddy or the sale price thereof amounting to Rs.3308/- @ Rs.105 /- per Mounds. [6] hich has been dismissed. Hence, the present appeal. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred the aforesaid appeal, w [7] r, 2001 on the following substantial question of law:- The appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 3rd Decembe (cid:28)1) Whether in fixing the share of the landlord any decisions given in previous cases between the same parties may be the criterion for determining the share su bsequently in the absence of any evidence from the side of the tenant and if so whether in the present case the quantum fixed by avoiding such, decisions is ten able in law? (cid:29)
Legal Reasoning
I have heard Mr. P.K. Deka, learned counsel for the appellant/pl [8] aintiff and Mr. S. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants . It has been contended by Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the appel [9] lant that since the rent @ 1/5th of the crop grown was found to be 2 Mounds per year vide judgment and decree passed in Money Suit No.78/1983, the Courts below could not have decreed the suit of the plaintiff in part by holding that the def endant is liable to give 31‰ Mounds of paddy being the share of crop instead of 54 Mounds for the years 1987; 1988 and 1989. The learned counsel submits that th e Courts below while passing the decree in part has completely ignored the afore said judgment and decree passed in the aforesaid money suit. [10] On the other hand, Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the re spondents submits that the decree in respect of the rent for the years 1987; 198 8 and 1989 cannot be passed based on the decree passed in the year 1983 in respe ct of the share of crop grown for the years 1977; 1978 and 1979, as the quantum of paddy grown has considerably decreased. It has also been submitted that sinc e the rent payable is 1/5th of the crop grown, the Courts below did not commit a ny illegality in recording the finding that the defendant for the years 1987; 19 88 and 1989, were liable to give value of 31‰ Mounds of paddy. [11] I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counse l appearing for the parties and also perused the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. [12] In the instant appeal, there is no dispute relating to the relat ionship of the landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant. It is also an admitted position of fact that the annual rent payable is 1/5th of th e crop grown. [13] It is no doubt true that vide judgment and decree passed in Mone y Suit No.78/1983, which suit was instituted for realization of the rent for the years 1977; 1978 and 1979, the share of the crop for those years was found to b e 2 Mounds per Bigha. The instant suit has been filed for realization of the re nt for the years 1987; 1988 and 1989, i.e. 10(ten) years after 1977; 1978 and 19 79. The rent payable being 1/5th of the crop grown and there being no fixed qua ntity of crop as rent, the rent payable would be dependent on the actual crop gr own. It appears from the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below that the plaintiff could only prove entitlement of his share of crop as 31‰ Mounds fo r the three years, i.e. 1987; 1988 and 1989. The plaintiff though claimed that h e is entitled to 2 Mounds per Bigha as rent, he, however, could not lead any evi dence in that regard. [14] That being the position, the Court below did not commit any ille gality in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The appeal, therefore, stand s dismissed. No costs. [15] The Registry is directed to send down the records.