Hemanta Kumar Roy and Others Vs Meser Bibi

Calcutta High Court 9 Jun 1925 95 Ind. Cas. 984
Bench: Division Bench

Judgement Snapshot

Hon'ble Bench

Ewart Greaves, J; B. B. Ghose, J

Judgement Text

Translate:

1. This appeal arises out of an application for increase of rent for increase of area presented before the Assistant Settlement Officer of Jessore.

Both the Courts below rejected the application on the ground that the kabuliyats showed that the rents were fixed for the lands as described within

the boundaries. The learned Special Judge observes that the area shown of each plot is a mere description and the rent was not fixed with

reference to the area nor is it shown that the tenants have made any encroachment on the khas land of the landlord. The question depends upon the

construction of the kabuliyats. It is true that the lands were let out as being bounded as described in the ''schedule and the area was described as

68 bighas and 15 1/2 cottas. Ordinarily it must be held that the area was merely given by guess and the lands as described Within the boundaries

were let out at the rent arranged and if the landlord failed to prove that the tenant was occupying more lands than he was paying rent for by

encroaching upon adjacent lands belonging to the landlord, a right to claim excess of rent for excess of area must fail. In this case, however, under

Clause 9 of the kabuliyat, it was stipulated that rent should be payable at certain rates with regard to a certain quality of land which would be found

on measurement under a survey, at which the tenant bound himself to be present. It may be inferred from that clause that the lands as described

within the boundaries were not let out at the fixed jama mentioned in the kabuliyat. But it was the intention of the parties that the rent should be

assessed upon a survey of the lands within the boundaries having regard to the class of land and area of each plot. It does not seem, therefore, the

decision of the Court of the Special Judge is correct.

2. The case must, therefore, be sent back to him for a finding as regards the area and rent payable with regard to each class of land, having regard

to the rent payable in the locality.

3. The costs of this appeal will abide the result. Hearing-fee, one gold mohur.

Full judgement PDF is available for reference.
Download PDF
From The Blog
Moti Ram Deka & Ors vs General Manager, N.E.F. Railways & Ors (1963)
Oct
19
2025

Landmark Judgements

Moti Ram Deka & Ors vs General Manager, N.E.F. Railways & Ors (1963)
Read More
M/s. Orissa Cement Ltd. & Others vs State of Orissa & Others (1991)
Oct
19
2025

Landmark Judgements

M/s. Orissa Cement Ltd. & Others vs State of Orissa & Others (1991)
Read More