Case: Mahesh Bhagat Vs. Ram Baran Mahto &amp; Ors

1. On July 15, 1912 Abdul Karim the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff executed in favour of the proprietors of an indigo concern collectively known as the Bhikhanpur Kothi a thika patta (Ex. 4) in respect of village Khanjadpur for a term of 40 years from 1320 to 1359 fasli corresponding to 1913 to 1952. By two pasta Katkenas (Exs. A and A-1) dated April as, 1940 and May 23, 1944 the Bhikhanpur Kothi settled plots Nos. 183 and 184 in village Khanjadpur with the predecessor-in-interest of the contesting defendants. The first settlement was for five years from 1347 to 1351 fasli. The second settlement was for five years from 1352 to 1365 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 which we are not concerned in this appeal. The Trial Court found that (1) plots Nos. 183 and 184 were bakasht and not zeriat lands, (2) the tenants under Exs. A and A-1 were settled raiyats of the village, (3) the thika patta in favour of the Bhikhanpur Kothi was a lease, (4) the Kothi had the authority to induct raiyats on the village and (5) the tenants held the plots as raiyats and they acquired occupancy rights under S. 21 of the Bihar Tenancy Act. On these findings the Trial Court disallowed the plaintiffs claim for recovery of possession of plots Nos. 183 and 184. The plaintiff filed an appeal in the High Court of Patna. Before the High Court the plaintiff did not dispute the correctness of the first two findings of the Trial Court. The High Court agreed with the other findings and dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff has now filed this appeal after obtaining special leave from this Court.

Court's reasoning:
5. A settled raiyat of a village is defined in S. 20 as a person who for a period of 12 years continuously held land in that village as a raiyat. It is conceded that the tenants were settled raiyats of village Khanjadpur within the meaning of Section 20. The question then is whether they held the plots as raiyats. Under Section 5 (2) a "raiyat" is a person who has acquired a right to hold land as a cultivating tenant either of the proprietor or of the tenure holder. Now the sub-lessees under Exs. A and A-1 were cultivating tenants of the Bhikhanpur Kothi. Exs. A and A-1 provided that the tenants would cultivate plots 183 and 184, get the same cultivated by others and appropriate the produce thereof. It is conceded that if Ex. 4 was a lease, the Bhikhanpur Kothi was a tenure holder. However, Ex. 4 stipulated that the Bhikhanpur Kothi should not execute a lease patta in favour of any tenant for any term extending beyond 1359 fasli when the term of Ex. 4 would expire. It is argued that in view of this stipulation, the tenants) of the Bhikhanpur Kothi could not acquire the right to hold the lands after l359 fasli. Now the settlements under Exs. A and A-1 did not contravene Ex. 4. The term of the last settlement expired in 1356 fasli. The tenancies were lawful at their inception. The tenants acquired the right to hold the lands as raiyats. As settled raiyats of the village they got rights of occupancy m the lands under S. 21 (1).6. The general rule is that no one can confer on another a better title than he himself has. The Bhikhanpur Kothi could not make a grant of the right to occupy the lands after the expiry of the lease in their favour. But the right of occupancy is not the creation of any grant from the Kothi. It is conferred by S. 21 (I). As the tenants are raiyats, the law steps in and protects them from eviction.In our opinion, the predecessor-interest of the contesting defendants acquired occupancy rights in plots Nos 183 and 184 and the courts below rightly dismissed the suit for recovery of possession of those plots.