Law: East Bengal State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950 (XXVIII of 1951)

Section: 28

Law: Bengal Tenancy Act (VIII of 1885)

Section: 181

East Bengal State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950 (XXVIII of 1951), S. 28 read with Bengal Tenancy Act (VIII of 1885), S. 181-Chakran (service tenures) not transferable-Trans ferees from last-holder of such tenure acquires no title to land--Section 28 of Act XXVIII of' 1951 merely enables chakran holder to get himself recorded as raiyat on assessment of rent.   JUDGMENT   This appeal is by the plaintiffs, who instituted a suit for establishment of their Karsha tenure in the suit land and for recovery of khas possession thereof.   Plaintiffs' case is that originally the land belonged to one Prahlad Bhunjamali in Karsha tenancy, which is recorded as chakran land in the settlement records. It was a service-tenure and the service consisted of sweeping the floor with a broom. The said Karsha, namely, the service-tenure, was inherited by his son called Satish. The plaintiffs are purchasers from Satish. Plaintiffs further allege that Prahlad gave barga settlement of the land to one Bhadra Atbar for half the produce thereof. The defendant is a son of Bhadra Atbar and he claims title by inheritance to the kol-karsha tenure held by his father.   Defendant denies that his father had obtained a barga-settle ment from Prahlad or Satish and, furthermore, it has been contended that plaintiffs' title based on a kabuliyat alleged to have been executed by defendant, marked as Exh. 2 in this case, is fictitious because at the time when the said kabuliyat is alleged to have been executed, plaintiffs' father was of unsound mind.   On behalf of the plaintiffs some evidence was led, but defendants produced a mass of documents, namely, the C. S. records which have recorded them as having the kol-karsha interest in the suit-land. There is also a mention of the word `barga', which is rather peculiar in its context. The trial Court, however, came to a finding that the alleged kabuliyat, namely, Exh. 2, which is said to have been executed by defendant's father, was not genuine because the learned Munsif, who tried the suit, came to a finding that Bhadra Atbar, defendant's father, was of unsound mind at the time when the kabuliyat is…