LexMAHESH BHAGAT versus RAM BARAN MAHTO & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
l 7'4.2 MAHESH BHAGAT v. RAM BARAN MAHTO & ORS. April 11, 1968 [R. S. BACHAWAT AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.] Bih41' TellQllC)I Act (Act 8 of 1885)-SO<ltions 5(2), 21(1)-Conslrlle- tion of deed-whether least or usufructory nwrtll"ge TtnurNwlder pro- hibited from executing I.mes for terms extending beyond· the term of tM tenure-Tenants inducted by tenure-holder-Whether acquires occupancy riahts. A, the predecessor~n-tnterest of the plaintiff executed a tbika patta in favour of B, in respect of a village for a term of 40 years from 1320 to 1959 fasli, the rent to be appropriated up ro. 1344 fasli towards satisfac- tion of debts owing from A to B and others. The patta B stipulated that B could not execute· a lease in favour of any tenant fOr any term extending beyond 1359 fasli. B settled plots in the village with the pmlecessara-in- interest of the defendants. The first settlement was for 5 years from 1347 to 1351 fasli. The s<cond settlement was for 5 years from 1352 to 13S6 fasli. The tenants were settled raiyats of the village. After the expiry of the term of the thika patta, the plaintiff instituted a suit for r(covery of possession of the plots. The Courts below dismissed the suit. In an appeal to this Court it was contended that (I) the thika patta was a mortgase and net a lease and the mortgagee B had no authority to induct raiyata, and (ii) that assuming that it was a lease, B had no authority to settle raiyats having occupancy rights enuring after the expiry of the lease. It was conceded that if the thika patta was a lease, B was a tenure-holder. HELD : dismissin11 t~ appeal, ( 1) The thika patta was a lease and not a usufructory mortgage, The gist of the document was letting for the full term of 40 years. There was no expres,s or implied grant of a right of redemption on repayment of the loan. The document was not intended to create relationship of debtor and creditor or a security for the! repayment of a debt; [744 DJ (2) The tenants of B, having acquired the right to hold land as cultiva- ting tenants of a tenure-holder, were raiyats as defined in s. 5 (2) of the Bihar Tenancy Act The tenancies were lawful at their inception. B was not prohibited by the thika patta from inducting raiyats on the land. In spite of the stipulation in the patta that B would not execute a lease in favour of any tenant for a term extendin~ beyond 1359 fasli, the tenants acquired the right to hold the land as raiyats. As settled raiyats of the village tb"Y got rights of occupancy in the lands under s. 21 (!) of the Act. [745 A-BJ The jlffieral rule is that no one can confer on another a better title than he himself has. B could not make a grant of the right to occupy the lands after the expiry of the lease in its favour. But the right of Occu- pancy is n<>t the creation of any grant from B. It is conferred bys. 21(1). As the tenants are raiyats, the law stePs in and protects them from eviction. [745 B-Cl Mahabir Gope v. Harbc:ns Narain Singh, [1952] S.C.R. 775, dmtin- Jlllished. Alill Chandra Rishl v. Lakhi Narain Ghose 10, C.L.J. 55 approved. CIVIL APPELLATE JUitISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 394 of 1965. A B c D E F G H MAHESH BHAGAT v. RAM BARAN (Bachawat, J.) 743 A Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated December 22, 1961 of the Patna High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No. 277 of 1956. Sarjoo Pras@ and D. Goburdhun, for the appellant. Yogeshwar Prasad and Hardev Singh. for respondents Nos. 1 B and 13 to 18. c The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat, J.-On July 15, 1912 Abdul Karim the predecessor-in-interest of the plai,ntilf executed in favour of the proprietors of an indigo concern collectively known as the Bhikhan- pur Kothi a thika patta (Ex. 4) in respect of village Khanjadpur for a term of 40 years from 1320 to 1339 fasli corresponding to 1913 to 1952. ·By two patta Katkenas (Exs. A and Al) dated April 25, 1940 and May 23, 1944 the .Bhikhanpur Kothi settled plots Nos. 183 and 184 in village Khanjadpur with the predecessors-in-interest of the contesting defendants. The first settlement was for five years from 134 7 to 13 51 fas Ii. The D second settlement was for five years from· 1352 to 1356 fasli. The term of the thika patta (Ex. 4) expired in 1359 fasli. Thereafter on April 24, 1953 the plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of possession of the plots. He also asked for certain other reliefs with whi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.