Calcutta High Court
Harihar Pal And Ors. vs Sudhir Kumar Pal And Ors. on 13 February, 1987
Equivalent citations: AIR1988CAL68, 91CWN958, AIR 1988 CALCUTTA 68, (1987) 91 CAL WN 958
JUDGMENT Sukmar Chakravarty, J.
1. This is an appeal from a decision dt. 11-9-1982 of Shri A. K. Dutt, the learned President of the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal in the Reference Case No. 3 of 1979(A) and it arises out of a dispute with regard to the apportionment of the compensation money which has been awarded by reason of the acquisition of the land with structures and trees thereon in question under the Calcutta Improvement Act.
2. It appears that 14chittacks 20 sq, ft. of land out of the plot No. 731 of mouza Kasba, in premises Nos. 55 and 56. K. N. Sen Road was acquired and the value of the land was assessed at Rs. 1,26.793.62 and the value of the structures and trees on the premises No. 56, K. N. Sen Road was assessed at Rs. 7309.00 and the value of the structures and trees on the premises No. 55 K. N. Sen Road was assessed at Rs. 5.875.00. The total value of the land with structures and trees thereon was thus assessed at Rs. 1,40.059.62. The amount of Rs. 3,718.00 as damage was added to the same under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. Thus the total compensation as awarded was Rs. 1,43.786,37 after deducting the capitalised value of the Government revenue at Rs. 8.75. The amount on account of the value of the land was jointly awarded in favour of the landlords of the land, the respective tenants with regard to the respective premises Nos. 55 K. N. Sen Road and 56 K, N. Sen Road and the Commissioner of Calcutta Corporation. The amount on account of the structures and trees on the respective premises Nos. 55 and 56 K. N. Sen Road was allotted to the respective tenants of those premises.
3. Being dissatisfied with the award as given by the learned Collector, the reference case in question was started before the learned President of the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal on the basis of the applications for reference filed by the respective tenants of the premises in question.
4. Sudhir Kumar Pal as heir of Kshetra Mohan Pal filed the application for reference claiming tenancy in the entire 24 decimal of land in plot No. 731 of C. S. Khatian No. 589 covering the entire acquired land under the landlord from the time of his forefather, on the allegation that Panchu Pada Pal was a licensee under him in respect of the premises No. 55 K. N. Sen Road. Another set of claimant, viz. Phanilal Pat and others, as heirs of Panchu Pada Pal, filed the otherapplication for reference claiming their tenancy in the premises No. 55 K. N. Sen Road covering 8 cottahs and odd land under the same landlord.
5. The landlords Harihar Pal and Suntosh Kumar Pal filed the written statement contending inter alia that Kshetra Mohan Pal. the father of Sudhir Kumar Pal was a tenant at will in respect of only 6 cottahs of land out of the land in plot No. 731 subject to the agreement that in case of the acquisition of land, the landlord shall get the compensation for the land and the tenant shall get the compensation for the structures, Their further contention was that Kshetra Mohan surrendered 4 cottahs land out of the said 6 cottahs of land and retained only 2 cottahs of land in premises No. 56 K. N. Sen Road. Their further case was that Panchu Pada Pal was the premises tenant in respect of 2 cottahs of land only in premises No. 55 K. N. Sen Road. The tenant-claimants also filed their respective written statements in support of their respective claims in the reference applications.
6. During the pendency of the reference case, both sets of the tenant-claimants filed a compromise petition settling their respective claims between themselves whereby they admitted the ownership of Phanilal Pat and others, the heirs of Panchu Pada Pal, over the 5 cottahs of land in premises No. 55 K. N. Sen Road and admitted also the ownership of Sudhir Kumar Pal over the remaining 9 cottahs 15 chittacks 20 sq. ft. of land in premises No. 56 K. N. Sen Road. The landlord Harihar Pal and another, however, resisted such claim of the two sets of tenant claimants in the compromise petition.
7. All the interested parties adduced evidence both oral and documentary in the reference case. The learned President on the materials in the record, accepted the claim of tenancy of Sudhir Kumar Pal over the entire acquired land which was described as 24 decimal of land in plot No. 731 of C. S. Khatian No. 589 under the landlords and held that the landlords had no land in the said plot outside the said tenancy. The learned President, however, gave effect to the petition of compromise filed by the two sets of tenant--claimants settling the dispute between them by accepting the claim of the heirs of Panchu Pada Pal, although the learned President found that the father of Sudhir Kumar Pal had the tenancy in the entire land. The learned President accordingly or dered that the total compensation as awarded with regard to the value of the land would be obtained by the two sets of reference tenant-claimants in terms of the compromise petition to the deduction on Rs. 80/- as capitalised value of the land on the basis of the annual rents for 20 years, which alone would be obtained by the landlordsand confirmed also the learned L.A. Collector's award allotting the compensation with regard to the value of the structures and trees on the respective premises Nos. 55 and 56 K. N. Sen Road to the respective tenants of those premises. It is an undisputed fact that the tenants claimants have withdrawn the respective compensation in respect of the structures and trees on the aforesaid premises.
8. Harihar Pal and the heirs of Santosh Kumar Pal as the landlords have preferred this appeal against the impugned order and have filed also an application under ORDER 41 Rule 27 of the Civil P.C. for admitting some document as additional piece of evidence on the grounds as alleged in the petition.
9. Mr. Bagchi appearing for the appellant landlords has submitted that the learned President was wrong in not relying on the Kabuliyat Ext. B(i) which was the certified copy of the registered Kabuliyat executed on the 1st May, 1929 and that the said Kabuliyat shows that Kshetra Mohan Pal, the father of claimant Sudhir Kumar Pal was the tenant at will under the predecessor of the present landlords in respect of only 6 cottahs land out of the land in plot No. 731 of Khatian No. 589 and that by the terms of the said Kabuliyat Kshetra Mohan Pal abandoned the claim on compensation for the land in favour of the landlord in case of acquisition. According to Mr. Bagchi, the said Kabuliyat, the written statement filed by referee-claimant-tenants and the compromise petition filed by those claimants and accepted by the learned President have proved that the entry in the C, S. Khatian No. 589 Ext. 3 showing Kshetra Mohan Pal's Korfa interest in the entire 24 decimal land was wrong and had no basis. Mr. Bagchi has further submitted that the documents exhibited in this case specially municipal tax receipts show that the heirs of Panchu Pada Pal had interest only in 2 cottahs land and accordingly they could get compensation for value of that 2 cottahs land only. Mr. Bagchi has made his submission for acceptance of the certified copy of the written statement filed by Kshetra Mohan Pal as defendant No. 8 in Title Suit No. 6 of 1932 admitting the execution of the registered Kabuliyat dated 1st May, 1929, as additional piece of evidence in view of the fact that the appellants landlords as opposite parties were not aware of and in possession of such documents during the hearing of the reference case and that the same was obtained after the disposal of the reference case.
10. Mr. Basak appearing for the respondent claimant-tenants has submitted that the landlords in their written statements had admitted that premises Nos. 35 and 56 K. N. Sen Road covered the entire acquired land. Mr. Basak has further submitted that Kshetra Mohan Pal was the non-agricultural tenant in respect of 6 cottahs land and Panchu Pada Pal was the non-agricultural tenant in respect of 8 cottahs and odd land in plot No. 731 which is now covered by the premises Nos. 55 and 56 K. N. Sen Road. As regards the Kabuliyat Ext. B(1). Mr. Basak has submitted that the Kabuliyat Ext. Bill cannot be legally admitted in evidence and even if it be admitted in evidence, the same being for a period of 5 years has already become non est and that the Kabuliyat being a unilateral lease deed, is invalid and that the terms of the Kabuliyat can no more bind the executant. Mr. Basak has further submitted that the terms in the Kabuliyat being repugnant to the provisions of Section 86 of the West Bengal Non-agricultural Tenancy Act cannot be enforceable even if it be assumed for the sake of argument that the terms of the Kabuliyat still bind the executant. Mr. Basak has opposed the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
11. On due considerations of the appellant's application under Order 41 Rule 27. Civil P.C. and upon hearing the learned Advocates on both sides over the same, we are satisfied to hold that the party seeking to produce the additional evidence has established that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by them at the time when the decree appealed against was passed and that this appellate court requires the said additional evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment. The certified copy of the written statement filed by Kshetra Mohan Pal as defendant No. 8 in Title Suit No. 6 of 1932 is therefore accepted as additional evidence and marked Ext. X (H.C.) in this court.
12. The written statement filed by the tenant-claimants and landlords and the documents like the notice Ext. 1/issued by the learned Land Acquisition Collector in connection with the acquisition of land have established that the premises Nos. 55 and 56 K. N. Sen Road cover the entire 14 cottahs 15 chittacks 20 sq. ft. land corresponding to 24 decimal land in plot No. 731 of C. S. Khatian No. 589. The notice Ext. 1(i) shows that the premises No. 55 K. N. Sen Road occupied by the heirs of Panchu Pada Pal contains 8 cottahs 15 chittacks 20 sq.ft. land. So the premises No. 56 K. N. Sen Road would certainly contain 6 cottahs land. The written statement filed by the claimants. Phanilal Pal and others, the heirs of Panchu Pada Pal says that Kshetra Mohan Pal. the father of the claimant Sudhir Kumar Pal was the tenant in respect of 6 cottahs land and Panchu Pada Pal was the tenant under the landlords in respect of 8 cottahs and odd land out of the land in C. S. plot No, 731 challenging the contention of Sudhir Kr. Pal in his written statement saying that Sudhir Kumar Pal's father Kshetra Mohan Pal was the tenant in respect of the entire land in C.S. plot No. 731 and that Panchu Pada Pal was a licensee under him in respect of some portion of the said land. The landlords Harihar Pal and others in their written statements filed in the reference case have contended that Kshetra Mohan Pal was the tenant at will under them in respect of 6 cottahs land in C.S. plot No. 731 and that Kshetra Mohan surrendered 4 cottah land out of 6 cottahs land and retained only 2 cottahs land which was covered by premises No. 36 K. N. Sen Road. The documents specially the Municipal tax receipt Ext. E(2) shows that Premises No. 56 K. N. Sen Road in occupation of the heirs of Kshetra Mohan Pal contains 6 cottahs land. No written document has been produced to show the alleged surrender of 4 cottahs land by Kshetra Mohan Pal in favour of the landlords. The story of said surrender is merely a story and not substantiated by any documentary evidence. The materials in the record rather have proved that 6 cottahs land in premises No. 56 K. N. Sen Road is in occupation of Sudhir Kumar Pal. the heir of Kshetra Mohan Pal and 8 cottahs and odd iand in premises No. 55 K. N. Sen Road is in occupation of the heirs of Panchu Pada Pal. The landlords Harihar Pal and another have not produced any paper to show that some land in premises No. 55 K. N. Sen Road is in their occupation. Ext. E(4) is in respect of one room and Kitchen only but not in respect of the entire land in premises No. 55 K. N. Sen Road.
13. The compromise petition filed by Sudhir Kumar Pal and the heirs of Panchu Pada Pal admitting the tenancy interest of each of the sets in the law of plot No. 731 now covered by the premises Nos. 55 and 56. K. N. Sen Road, the written statement filed by the respective parties as already discussed above and the documents like Municipal tax receipts and the notice issued by the learned Land Acquisition Collector prove that the entry in C. S. Khatian No. 589 Ext. 3 showing Kshetra Mohan Pal's Korfa interest in the entire land of C. S. Plot No. 731 (now premises Nos. 55 and 56 K. N. Sen Road) is wrong. The Kabuliyat Ext. B(i) also supports the same and it supports the written statements of the heirs of Panchu Pada Pal and the Municipal tax receipt Ext. E(2) showing that 6 cottahs land was in occupation of Kshetra Mohan Pal.
14. Now the question is whether the Kabuliyat Ext. B(1) has been legally admitted in evidence. Ext. B(1) is the certified copy of the registered Kabuliyat executed by the tenant Kshetra Mohan Pal on 1st May 1929. Mr. Basak has submitted that the certified copy of the registered Kabuliyat executed on 1-5-1929 cannot go into evidence without proof of the execution of the original document and that no presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act about the execution of the 30 years old document can be available with regard to the certified copy of the said document. Placing reliance on the decisions in the case of Harihar Prasad Singh v. Deonarain Prasad reported in AIR 1956 SC 305 and in the case of Anima Das Sharma v. Rev, Dr. Lawrance Trevor Picachy reported in (1976) 80 Cal WN 788 : (1976) 2 Cal LJ 243, we agree with Mr. Basak to hold that the statutory presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act is not applicable to the certified copies of the documents being 30 years old. The certified copy of the registered Kabuliyat dt. 1-5-1929 may however, be received as secondary evidence of the original documents in this case under Section 65(c) of the Evidence Act as it has transpired from evidence that the original is lost and not traceable and and that non-production of the original is not due to any default or neglect on the part of the party producing the certified copy. In the case reported in (1976) 80 Cal WN 788 (Supra), the Division Bench of this Court presided over by M. M. Dutt. J. (as he then was), has held as follows :
"We hold that the certified copies of the documents that have been filed by the respondent are admissible in evidence under Clause (c) of Section 65 of the Evidence Act and the fact that the original documents are registered documents, there is a presumption as to the due execution thereof by the persons alleged to have executed the same, in view of Section 57(5) read with Section 60(2) of the Indian Registration Act, We make it clear, however, that we may not be understood to lay down the proposition that whenever certified copies of registered documents are produced, there is no necessity to prove the execution of the same in accordance with Section 67 of the Evidence Act. But when there is loss of evidence relating to the execution of any document, the court may in a suitable case rely on the registration certificate as prima facie evidence of proof of execution."
15. So placing reliance on the principles of law as enunciated in (1976) 80 Cal WN 788 (Suprai, we are of the view that the certified copy of the registered Kabuliyat was righily admitted in evidence and marked Ext. B(1). The reference of the execution of this Kabuliyat dt. 1-5-1929 in the registered sale deed di. 30-10-1931 (Ext. B) executed by the heirs of one i viz. Apurba Chandra Pal I of the predecessors in interest of the present landlords and in the written statement (certified copy of which is Ext. X(H.C.) filed by Kshetra Mohan Pal. the executant of the Kabuliyat Ext, B(1), in Title Suit No. 6 of 1932. admitting the execution of the said Kabuliyat. conclusively proves the genuineness of the Kabuliyat (Ext. B(1). The submission on Mr. Basak that the Kabuliyat Ext. B(1) is not genuine and that the same was created in collusion does not stand to any reason. Mr. Basak's submission on the basis of the written statement filed by the claimants who are the heirs of Panchu Pada Pal that Kshetra Mohan had tenancy right over 6 cottahs of land in plot No. 731 is supported by the recitals in the Kabuliyat Ext. B(1).
16. Why then Mr. Basak challenges the said Kabuliyat Ext. B(1) as not genuine? The reason is not far to seek. There is one recital in the Kabuliyat saying "If the said land is acquired by any company within the stipulated period, then you will get the compensation money on account of the land. I shall only get the value of the hut etc. made by me on payment of arrears of rent." This Kabuliyat Ext. B(1) was executed by Kshetra Mohan as Korfa-tenant in favour of his immediate landlords who were admittedly tenants in respect of the C.S. plot No. 731. The above quoted or stipulation in the Kabuliyat Ext. B(1) goes to show that in case of acquisition of the tenanted land, the landlord of the Korfa tenant Kshetra Mohan would get the compensation for the land. The aforesaid recital is nothing but an agreement or contract from the side of the Korfa tenant Kshetra Mohan abandoning the claim for compensation for land in case of the acquisition of the land.
17. Mr. Basak has submitted that the said agreement or undertaking given by the executant in a unilateral Kabuliyat Ext. B(1) was not legally binding upon the executant Kshetra Mohan Pal and even if it be assumed that the said agreement was binding upon the executant, the enforceability of that agreement lasted during the life time of the Kabuliyat itself which was for a period of 5 years from the date of execution on 1st May, 1929. Mr. Basak's further submission is that there is no evidence to show that by execution of any other subsequent Kabuliyat or deed the period of lease was extended in the same terms of the Kabuliyat Ext. B(1).
18. Mr. Bagchi has, however, submitted that Kshetra Mohan Pal was holding over the Korfa-tenanted 6 cottahs of land even after the expiry of the 5 years term of the Kabuliyat Ext. B(1) on the same terms and conditions of the said Kabuliyat on payment of rent to the landlord and that the said renewed tenancy continued on the same terms and conditions as it is not the case of the heir of Kshetra Mohan that Kshetra Mohan took the renewed tenancy by executing any other Kabuliyat or lease deed. According to Mr. Bagchi, in the case of holding over the Korfa-tenanted land after the expiry of the term of the Kabuliyat Ext. B(1). the Korfa-tenant holding over the land would be the Korfa-tenant on the same terms and conditions of the Kabuliyat Ext. B(1) by way of renewed tenancy although the 5 years' term of the Kabuliyal Ext. B(l) expired. In support of his such submission, Mr. Bagchi has relied on the decision in the case of Radhanath Maity v. Krishna Chandra Mukherji reported in (1936) 40 Cal WN 722 : (AIR 1936 Cal 249) and also in the case of Bhawanji Lakhamshi v. Himatlal Jamnadas Dani . In the case reported in (1936) 40 Cal WN 722, the occupancy tenant holding over the land after the expiry of the term of the tenancy as per the Kabuliyat. stipulated in the Kabuliyat that he would not be entitled to any portion of the compensation on compulsory acquisition of the tenancy land, and the Division Bench of this Court presided over by D. N. Mitter, J. placing reliance on the decision in the case of Ashutosh Chandra' Mitra v. Haripada Ganguli reported in (1931) 35 Cal LJ 133 : (AIR 1930 Cal 815). where a Division Bench presided over by Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mukherji held that an agreement that an occupancy raiyat will not in the event of acquisition by the Crown claim a share of the compensation money, was legal and enforceable, has decided that such stipulation is still binding on the tenant. In the case , it was held as follows : --
"The act of holding overafter the expiration of the term does not create a tenancy of any kind. If a tenant remains in possession after the determination of the lease, the common law rule is that he is a tenant on sufferance. There is a distinction between a tenant continuing in possession after the determination of the term with the consent of the landlord and a tenant doing so without his consent. The former is a tenant at sufferance in English Law and the latter a tenant holding over or a tenant at will. The assent of the landlord to the continuance of possession will create a new tenancy."
19. In the instant case it is an undisputed fact that the holding over of the land was coupled with the payment of rent which was accepted by the landlord even after the expiry of the term of the lease. In view of the concluding words of Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act a lessee holding over is in a better position than a tenant at will. The holding over of the land after the expiry of the term of the Kabuliyat on payment of rent which was accepted by the landlord on the terms and conditions of the Kabuliyat no doubt, created a renewed tenancy in favour of Kshetra Mohan Pal on the same terms and conditions of the earlier Kabuliyat Ext. B(1).
20. Mr. Basak's submission that the principle of law as enunciated in the case reported in (1936) 40 Cal WN 722 : (AIR 1936 Cal 249) under the Bengal Tenancy Act is not applicable in the instant case under the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act or the West Bengal Thika Tenancy Act, which was applicable to the non-agricultural land coming under the jurisdiction of the Corporation. We respectfully differ to agree with Mr. Basak on this point. The principle of law as enunciated in connection with the case of the Bengal Tenancy Act with regard to a tenant holding over the land after the expiry of the term of the tenancy on the basis of a Kabuliyat would be applicable with all its force in the case of such a tenant under the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act also.
21. Mr. Bagchi has however, submitted that originally the case land was under the Bengal Tenancy Act and the entry in the C. S. Khatian Ext. 3 describing Kshetra Mohan Pal as Korfa tenant supports the same, although the case land was described as bastu land in the said khatiari. Mr. Bagchi has further submitted that the execution of the unilateral Kabuliyat Ext. B(1) by Kshetra Mohan also supports such view. Mr. Bagchi has further submitted that the execution of the unilateral Kabuliyat of 1st May. 1929 in respect of the land even covered by the Transfer of Property Act before the Amendment of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act by inserting the 3rd para thereof pursuant to the Transfer of Property (Amendment) Act. 1929 (Act XX of 1929) which came into force on the 1st of April, 1930 was not illegal and invalid. Be that as it may we have already held that the well-settled principle of law as enunciated in the case of Radhanath Maity reported in (1936) 40 Cal WN 722 : (AIR 1936 Cal 249) (Supra) is applicable also in the instant case where it has been found that Kshetra Mohan Pal as a Korfa tenant was holding over the 6 cottahs land even after the expiry of the term of the Kabuliyat Ext. B(1) on the same terms of the Kabuliyat on payment of rent to the landlord and a new tenancy on the same terms was created.
22. Mr. Basak's last submission is that Kshetra Mohan's agreement as per the stipulation in the Kabuliyat Ext. B(1) for abandoning the claim for compensation for the land in favour of the landlord is hit by Section 86 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act is also not sustainabie, In the case of Radhanath Maity reported in (1936) 40 Cal WN 722 : (AIR 1936 Cal 249) (Supra) under the Bengal Tenancy Act it was held that Section 178 of the Bengal Tenancy Act containing almost the similar provisions as contemplated in Section 86 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, did not hit the occupancy raiyat's agreement in abandoning the claim for compensation for value in case of acquisition. So viewed, we also hold that in this case also. Kshetra Mohan's stipulation in the Kabuliyat Ext. B(1) abandoning the claim of compensation of the land in case of acquisition, and the continuance of such stipulation even after the expiry of the term of the Kabuliyat Ext, B(1) as the new tenancy created by holding over on payment of rent was on the same terms of the Kabuliyar is not hit by the provisions of Section 86 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act because such stipulation does not limit or take away the right of the tenant acquired under the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act.
23. On due consideration of the materials in the record and also the evidence both oral and documentary, we have already found that the claimant Sudhir Kumar Pal. the heir of Kshetra Mohan Pal acquired right, title and interest in 6 cottahs of land covered by the premises No. 56, K. N. Sen Road under the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act and then under the West Bengal Thika Tenancy Act when the land came under the jurisdiction of the Corporation of Calcutta and Phanilal Pal and others, the heirs of Panchu Pada Pal acquired also similar interest over the 8 cottahs, 15 chittacks, 20 sq, ft. of land covered by the premises No. 55 K. N. Sen Road. We have already shown that because of Kshetra Mohan's agreement in abandoning the claim for compensation for value of 6 cottahs of land in premises No. 56 K. N. Sen Road in favour of the landlord in case of acquisition. Sudhir Kumar Pal is not entitled to get the compensation for the land. The landlords Harihar Pal and others are entitled to get the compensation for the 6 cottahs of land in premises No. 56 K. N. Sen Road. For the 8 cottahs 15 chittacks 20 sq. ft. of land in premises No. 55 K. N. Sen Road. Phanilal Pal and others, the heirs of Panchu Pada Pal are entitled to get the compensation. The compensation for the total land as worked out by the learned Land Acquisition Collector on the value at the rate of Rs. 8,478/- per cottah and the compensation for the structures and trees upon the respective as assessed by the learned Land Acquisition Collector have not been disputed. The landlords Harihar Pal and others will get the compensation on the value of Rs. 50,868/- for 6 cottahs of land at the rate of Rs. 8,478/- per cottah. and the balance out of the total value of Rs. 126,875.62 for the entire acquired land shall be obtained by Phanilal Pal and others, the heirs of Panchu Pada Pal, to the deduction of Rs. 2407- as capitalised value therefrom for their 8 cottahs 15 chittacks 20 sq. ft. of land. The damage of Rs. 3,718/- awarded under Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act shall be proportionately divided between the landlords on one side and Phanilal Pal and others, the heirs of Panchu Pada Pal on the other side. The compensation on account of the structures and trees on the respective premises shall be obtained by the respective holder of the premises Nos. 55 and 56 K. N. Sen Road as awarded and allotted by the learned Land Acquisition Collector. Be it recorded here that the respective compensation for the structures and trees on the respective premises has been withdrawn by the respective tenant-claimants. In view of the above decision, the compromise petition filed by the sets of tenant-claimants is not accepted and acted upon by setting aside the order of the learned President in this respect.
24. The capitalised value of Rs. 240/- for the 8 cottahs and odd land in premises No. 55 K. N. Sen Road out of the compensation for the land of 8 cottahs 15 chittacks and 20 sq. ft. as mentioned above on the calculation of 20 years' rental the rate of Rs. 12/- per annum as admitted by the claimants Phanilal Pal and others, the heirs of Panchu Pada Pal shall be obtained by the landlords Harihar Pal and others.
25. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned President are set aside and the reference case is disposed of in the light of the apportionments as mentioned and directed above.
26. We make no order as to costs in this appeal.
Gobinda Chandra Chatterjee, J
27. I agree.