RAM KIRTARATH Vs. RAGHUNATH MISSIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule is directed against the order of the District Judge of Santal Parganas refusing to allow the petitioner to appeal in forma paupsris.

(2.) The opposite party had instituted a suit in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Dumka making for a declaration that they were the nearest reversioners of one Ramsunder Misser. It was alleged that after Ramsunder Misser's death his widow came into possession of the properties. The widow died sometime in the year 1948 after which the plaintiffs obtained the properties. It was stated that an adverse order was passed in a proceeding under Section 144, Criminal P. C., as a result of which the opposite party were dispossessed of the land. The opposite party, therefore, asked for recovery of possession of the land. The suit was contested by the petitioner who asserted that he was adopted in 'Dattak' form by the widow of Mostt. Sumaro in 1943, that he was in possession of the land, that he had been recognised as a tenant by the landlord who granted him rent receipts. Upon a consideration of the evidence the Subordinate Judge held in the first place that there was no truth in the case of adoption set up by the petitioner, that the genealogy given by the opposite party was correct, that the opposite party were the nearest reversioners to the estate of Ramsunder Misser and the suit was not barred by limitation. Upon these findings the Subordinate Judge granted a decree to the opposite party for all the reliefs claimed by them in the plaint.

(3.) Against this decree the petitioner filed an application under Order 44, Rule 1 before the District Judge of Santal Parganas asking for permission to prefer an appeal in forma pauperis. The main contention of the petitioner was that under Section 25 of Regulation II of 1886 the petitioner could not be ejected except under an order of the Deputy Commissioner of Santal Parganas. The argument was rejected by the District Judge on the ground that Section 25 referred to a raiyat and since the petitioner was not a raiyat within the meaning of that section, the suit was rightly decreed by the learned Subordinate Judge. It was further held by the District Judge that Act 14 of 1949 had repealed Section 25 Regulation II of 1886 and the new Act had retrospective effect. The District Judge, therefore, held that the findings of the Subordinate Judge were not vitiated by any gross error of fact or any misconception of law and accordingly rejected the application filed by the petitioner for leave to appeal in forma pauperis.