Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The facts, in brief, are these : Shambhu Nath Dutta and his three other brothers, who were brothers of Baidyanath Dutta, defendant-respondent 1, brought two rent suits against the plaintiffs, in the court of the Deputy Collector at Purulia under Section 142 (1) (B) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (Bengal Act VI of 1908), hereinafter referred to as "the Act". To each of these suits, Baidyanath Dutt, defendant-respondent 1, was made a pro forma defendant. The plaintiffs, of those suits, claimed -/12/- interest in the claimed holding, and, alleged that their brother, Baidyanath Dutt, the pro forma defendant of those suits was their co-sharer in respect of the remaining -/4/- share.

12-13. The first ground taken, for showing that the decrees, under execution, were without Jurisdiction, because a decree cannot be passed In favour of a defendant, at first sight seems attractive, but on going deep in the matter, it Will be found that the shadow cast is cleared up.

14. The suits, instituted by the brothers of Baidyanath Dutt, respondent, were in accordance with the provisions of Section 142(1) (b) of the Act. In the plaint of each of the two suits, the plaintiffs prayed for a decree in respect of the entire claim and paid court-fee thereon. Alternatively, they also prayed that if it be found that their co-sharer, the pro forma defendant, Baidyanath Dutt, had not realised the rent, due to him, and, if be did not desire to be included in the category of the plaintiffs, then in that case separate decrees may be passed in respect ol the amount due to them both as specified in Schedules 2 and 3, attached to the plaint, in favour of the plaintiffs, and also in favour of the pro forma defendant.

Section 142 (2), therefore, means that if the sums due to the plaintiff and to the co-sharer landlord or landlords, as the case may be, are determined by the Deputy Commissioner, he must decree the suit in accordance with his determination of the rent due to the plaintiff and the pro forma defendant. It does not provide that in such ft case, the co-sharer defendant has to be transposed to the category of the plaintiff, or co-plaintiff.

For the purpose of Section 142(2), the co-sharer plaintiffs as well as co-sharer defendants are both treated on the same footing, and, both are considered as, and are in the position of, plaintiffs entitled to the rent due to them. In such a case, it is not necessary that the co-sharer defendant should be transposed to the category of the plaintiff, and, then, a decree should be passed in his favour.

25. In the present case, as far as the plaintiffs and the pro forma defendant of those two rent suits were concerned, there was absolutely no dispute between them regarding their respective title to, or, interest in the rent claimed land. Their title was disputed only by the tenants-defendants, but Section 215(2) requires that "a question relating to a title to land, or to some interest in land", should be as between parties having conflicting claims thereto. There was, therefore, no conflict between the plaintiffs and the pro forma defendant themselves in respect to their respective title to the rent claimed land.