On Appeal from the High Court in Bengal.
Solicitors for Appellant :- T.L. Wilson & Co. Solicitors for Respondents :- Dallimore & Son. Appeal from a decree of the High Court (June 1, 1903), reversing a decree of the District Court of Purnea (August 16, 1900) and restoring a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Purnea (September 30, 1899). The question decided was whether the respondent was entitled, under the circumstances stated in the judgment of their Lordships to a perpetual injunction restraining the appellants from erecting certain buildings on a plot of land situate in the village of Badh Manoharpur. The property which comprised this plot was held jointly by the respondent and the first three appellants, the former being entitled to a 10½ annas share, the latter to a 3½ annas share, certain defendants not parties to the appeal being entitled to the remaining 2 annas. The sixth appellant was the purchaser of the plot of land in suit, and he entered into an agreement with the first appellant to carry on an indigo business in partnership. With this view they sowed indigo, and began to build a factory on the said plot. The plait sought a perpetual injunction, and the defence was that the land in dispute formed a portion of the holding of seventy begahs sold to the sixth appellant on May 25, 1896, that his interest therein was a transferable right of occupancy and that he had a right in law to erect the disputed buildings on the said land. It was further pleaded that the buildings were erected to the knowledge of the plaintiff and without objection on his part, that any loss occasioned to him could be sufficiently compensated in money, and that no case had been made for the grant of a perpetual injunction and the other relief claimed. By the findings of the Courts below it was conclusively established that the sixth appellant had a right of occupancy as claimed. The Subordinate Judge decreed as prayed, but the District Jude decided that a tenant having occupancy rights was entitle to grow indigo as a crop if he so wished , and to erect permanent buildings on his holding on his holding, provided they were for the benefit of the property and consistent with the purposes for which it was let, and that the building in suit fulfilled both these requisites. The High Court, on the other hand, held that the erection of an indigo factory by an occupancy tenant rendered the land "unfit for the purpose of the tenancy" within the meaning of section 23 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and that the finding of the District Judge to the contrary was not a finding of fact with which the High Court were precluded from interfering. De Gruyther, for the appellants, contended that an occupancy tenant is entitled in law to erect on his land such buildings as are now in dispute. The land was let for agricultural purposes, and the buildings did not render the land unfit for those purposes and did not impair its value,. It rather increased that value to the extent of the value of the building erected. Reference was made to the Bengal Tenancy Act (VIII of 1885), sections 19, 23, 26, 29, 76, 77, 78, 178, and 183, and to Nyamuloollah Ostagur v. Gobind Churn Dutt. (1866) 6 S.W.R., Act X rulings, 40. The building were erected with the consent of some co-shares, and without objection from others. At to the extent of the injunction granted, see Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), section 54. C.W. Arathoon, for the respondent, contended that the buildings in question were wholly inconsistent with the purpose for which the land was let. That purpose was the cultivation of crops. The manufacture of cakes out of indigo plants is not an agricultural purpose. The erection of an indigo factory on the land was calculated to render it unfit for the real purposes of the tenancy. The Bengal Tenancy Act only applied to agricultural tenancies, and section 76 provided that the use of the land must be consistent with the purpose for which it was let, that is, an agricultural purpose. Reference was made to Lal Sahoo v. Deo Narain Singh (1878) I.L.R. 3 Calc. 781; Ramanadhan v. Zamindar of Ramnad (1893) I.L.R. 16 Madr. 407; Venkayya v. Ramasami (1898) I.L.R. 22 Madr. 39; Najju Khan v. Imtiazuddin (1895) I.L.R. 18 Allah. 115. and Jugut Chunder Roy Chowdhry v. Eshan Chunder Benerjee (1875) 24 S.W.R. 220. De Gruyther replied. Cases Referred :- Jugut Chunder Roy Chowdhry v. Eshan Chunder Benerjee (1875) 24 S.W.R. 220. Lal Sahoo v. Deo Narain Singh (1878) I.L.R. 3 Calc. 781. Najju Khan v. Imtiazuddin (1895) I.L.R. 18 Allah. 115. Nyamuloollah Ostagur v. Gobind Churn Dutt. (1866) 6 S.W.R., Act X rulings, 40. Ramanadhan v. Zamindar of Ramnad (1893) I.L.R. 16 Madr. 407. Venkayya v. Ramasami (1898) I.L.R. 22 Madr. 39.