RADHA PRASAD RAI Vs. LAKSHMI KANT TEWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which arises in this appeal is whether the suit for ejectment brought by the plaintiff is barred under the provisions of Order 2, Rule 2, Civil P. C.

(2.) The facts leading up to this question may be shortly stated. Tne land in dispute covers an area of 31.19 acres comprised in khata No. 88 of village Lodhas and Khata No. 7 of village Hetampur, of which defendant No. 6, the Maharaja of Dumraon, is the sixteen annas landlord. Defendants 1 to 5, who are the tenants, failed to pay arrears of rent, and, in consequence, the landlord instituted a certificate proceeding' against them, for realising the rent. In Certificate Case No. 428 of 1936/37, the land in question was sold by the Certificate Officer and purchased by defendant No. 6. The sale took place on 1-11-1937, and confirmed on 3-1-1938. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No. 6 got delivery of possession through process of the certificate Court on 6-4-1938. Later on, defendant No. 6 made settlement of the land in favour of the plaintiff. The date of settlement is 28-10-1940. The plaintiff alleged that there was a dispute under Section 144, Criminal P. C., between him on the one hand and defendants 1 to 5 on the other regarding the possession of the land. The case was, eventually, decided against the plaintiff by the Criminal Court which found that defendants 1 to 5 were in possession. On 6-12-1944, the plaintiff brought the present suit asking for a declaration of his title and claiming that he should, be restored to the possession of the land.

(3.) Defendant No. 6, the Maharaja of Dum-raon, filed a written statement, but did not contest the suit. Defendants 1 to 5, however, contested the suit, and their main defence was that the land in question was joint family property, and the Maharaja of Dumraon could not, by virtue of the certificate proceeding, obtain a valid title to the land. It appears that the certificate proceeding was taken out in the name of Isar Dayai Rai & it was contended on behalf of the defendants that the certificate proceeding could not affect the interest of the other members of the joint family.