1958 (9) TMI 74 - SC - Indian Laws

Appeal Allowed, Lower Court Judgment Reversed, District Judge Decision Restored, Costs Awarded

The appeal was allowed, the judgment of the lower court was reversed, and that of the District Judge was restored, with costs throughout. The court held ... Character of the grant under Exhibit B - whether it amounts to a new Patni with reference to the Chaukidari Chakaran lands as contended for by the appellant, or whether it incorporates those lands in the Patni of lot Ahiyapur, so as to make them part and parcel of the lands comprised therein, as is maintained by the respondents? Held that:- Appeal allowed. Exhibit B creates a distinct Patni, that the sale thereof on May 15, 1937, is valid, and that the plaintiff has therefore acquired a good title to the suit lands under the grant dated February 13, 1941. In this view, it is unnecessary to express any opinion on the point that was the subject of considerable argument before us as to whether it is open to the defendants to raise the invalidity of the sale held on May 15, 1937, in answer to this action, they not having taken steps to have set it aside, as provided in s. 14 of the Regulation. Issues Involved:1. Whether the defendants could raise the issue of the nature of the grant under Exhibit B for the first time in appeal.2. The true character of the grant under Exhibit B.3. Validity of the sale of the suit lands.4. Applicability of Section 14 of the Bengal Patni Taluks Regulation, 1819.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Raising the Issue of the Nature of the Grant Under Exhibit B for the First Time in Appeal:The plaintiff contended that the defendants did not raise the issue of the nature of the grant under Exhibit B in the trial court and should not have been allowed to raise it in appeal. However, the court found no substance in this contention. It was determined that the true nature of the grant under Exhibit B is a matter of law that can be decided based on the document's terms. The court referenced established legal principles stating that no evidence is admissible on a question of contract construction, which must be based solely on the document's terms. Consequently, the court held that the learned judges were right in allowing this point to be raised in appeal.2. True Character of the Grant Under Exhibit B:The court examined whether Exhibit B created a new Patni distinct from lot Ahiyapur or incorporated the Chaukidari Chakaran lands into the Patni of lot Ahiyapur. The court analyzed the rights and obligations of the Zamindar and Patnidar under Section 51 of the Village Chaukidari Act, 1870, and concluded that the grant of Chaukidari Chakaran lands by the Zamindar to the Patnidar could either be a continuation of the original Patni or a new and distinct Patni based on the agreement's terms.The court scrutinized the material terms of Exhibit B, noting clauses that indicated the creation of a new Patni, such as the provision for selling the lands in default of payment under Regulation VIII of 1819. The court also considered clauses suggesting the lands were part of the original Patni, such as the provision that if the Patni interest in lot Ahiyapur was transferred, the Patni interest in the Chaukidari Chakaran lands would also be transferred.Ultimately, the court concluded that the intention of the parties, as expressed in Exhibit B, was to create a distinct Patni for the Chaukidari Chakaran lands.3. Validity of the Sale of the Suit Lands:The court held that since Exhibit B created a new Patni, the sale of the lands comprised therein was not invalid as a sale of a portion of a Patni. The court emphasized that the rule against selling a portion of a Patni is intended for the benefit of the Patnidars, and an agreement allowing such a sale, which is to their advantage, should be upheld. Consequently, the sale of the suit lands on May 15, 1937, was deemed valid.4. Applicability of Section 14 of the Bengal Patni Taluks Regulation, 1819:Given the court's conclusion that Exhibit B created a distinct Patni and the sale was valid, it found it unnecessary to express an opinion on whether the defendants could challenge the sale's validity without having taken steps to set it aside under Section 14 of the Regulation.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed, the judgment of the lower court was reversed, and that of the District Judge was restored, with costs throughout. The court held that Exhibit B created a distinct Patni, the sale of the lands on May 15, 1937, was valid, and the plaintiff had acquired a good title to the suit lands under the grant dated February 13, 1941.