LexJYOTISH THAKUR AND OTHERS versus TARAKANT JHA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 13 JYOTISH THAKUR AND OTHERS v. T ARAKANT JHA AND OTHERS (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. c. DAS GUPTA AND J. R. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.) Raiyati Land-Acquisition of,superior landl-0rd's interest by raiyat-Raiyati interest, if mer!/ed in proprietor's inrerest-Land tenure in Santhal PargaWLS-Rule of merger, if applicable- " Bakasht }lfalik", meaning of-Rcy·,lation III of 1872, s.27. S who was the owner of the raiyati interest in the lands in question acquired the entire interest of the Lakhirajdar under whom he was the raiyat. These lands were purchased by the appellants under a deed dated May 15, 1935, from the successors in interest of S. The plaintiffs' case was that no interest passed to the vendees by the sale deed because the raiyati character of the land was existing on the date of transfer and this was inalienable under the provisions of s. 27 of Regulation III of l872. The trial court took the vie"v- that the land did not retain its raiyati character after S acquired the land1ord's interest and sos. 27 of Regulation III was not applicable. The High Court was of the opinion that the raiyati interest recorded in the earlier settlement continued in spite of the entry ''Bakasht Mal!k" in the subsequent settlement and that the raiyati interest could not be alienated by the sale deed dated May 15,1935. Held, that S's iaiyati interest was not merged in his pro- prietary interest but continued side by side, and that his successors in interest did not in la,v transfer the raiyati· interest in the land to the vendees in 1935. The legal position as regards merger, apart from statutory provi.-,ions, is that while the union of the superior and subordinate interests wil I not automaticall> cause a merger, merger will be held to have taken place if the intention to merge is clear and not otherwise. In the absence of any express indication of intention, the courts will proceed on the basis that the party had no intention to merge it if it is to his interest not to merge and also if a duty lay on him to keep the interests separate. In deciding the intention of the party the court will have regard also to his conduct; there was, in the present case, no evidence of intention to merge and S must be held to have intended to keep the two interests distinct and separate. 1962 September J J, 1962 J yotish Thakur v. Tarakant Jha Das Gupta,]. 14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. The entry in the record of "Bakasht Malik" againft the land meant that the land which was formerly recorded aslin the cultivating possession of a raiyat under a landlord was in the cultivating possession of the landlord himself. Helil, further, that s. 27 (3) of Regulation III did not stand in the way of the plaintiffs getting relief in the civil court. Semble, in the community village areas of the Santhal Parganas which covered the greater part of the district, a raiyat has not got the right to put an end to his raiyati interest even where he acquires the superior interest. The doctrine of merger does not apply to the case of raiyati holders in the Santhal Parganas. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 443 of 1959. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated April 27, 1956, of the Patna High Court in L. P. A. No. 13 of 1954. L. K. ,Jha and B. P. Jha, for the appellants. N. G. Chatterjee, A. N. Sinha and P. K. Jfukheijee, for respondents Nos. 1 to 7. 1962. September 11. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS GuPTA, J.-If a raiyat of lands in the Dis- trict of Santhal Parganas acquires the entire superior landlord's interest, does his raiyati interest cease to exist or does he continue to be a raiyat in addition to becoming a superior landlord ? This is the main question raised in this appeal arising out of a suit for declaration and delivery of possession of 12 bighas, 16 kathas, 4 dhurs of land in Mauza, Chhatahara in the District of Santhal Parganas. The plaintiffs and the four defendants, described in the plaint as defen- dants 2nd party, are the successors in interest of one Santokhi Jha who became owner of the entire raiyati interest in these lands many years ago. Some time after he became a raiyat of this land, Santokhi pur- chased by a registered deed the entire interest of the .• I . • 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 15 Lakhirajdar under whom he was the raiyat. On May 15, 1935, these lands were sold by the 2nd party defe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.