RUDRA PRATAP SINGH Vs. JAGDISH MAHARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs instituted the suit, out of which the present appeal arises, for a declaration that the lands in suit are their raiyati lands and for possession of the same with mesne profits either from defendant 1 or from defendant 2. The case of the plaintiffs may be shortly stated as follows: Plaintiff 1 was the hereditary herald (kavi); of the family of the late Maharaja Harballabh Narain Singh, the maternal grandfather of defendant 1. Near about the year 1933 there cropped up. a litigation with respect to the properties left by Maharaja Harballabh Narain Singh. His gotias claimed that the inheritance to the properties was governed by the rule of lineal primogeniture, while the present defendant 1 contended that there was no such custom in the family of the late Maharaja. During that litigation plaintiff 1 rendered valuable services to defendant 1 in lieu of which the lands in suit having an area of about 100 bighas 1 katha 5 dhurs set out in schedule 1 attached to the plaint were settled with him on an annual jama of Rs. 6-7-3 including cess. After the settlement, plaintiff 1 came in possession of the same. On 2-12-1938, plaintiff 1 sold half of the settled lands to plaintiff 2 by means of a registered sale deed after which "the latter came in possession of the vended property. Some time in the year 1346 Fasli there cropped up a dispute with respect to the possession of the lands in question which ultimately resulted in a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal P. C. This proceeding terminated against the plaintiffs and in favour of the present defendant 2 which necessitated the institution of the present suit.

(2.) The suit was contested by both the defendants. They denied the alleged settlement of the lands in dispute with plaintiff 1. They pleaded that the sale deed in favour of plaintiff 2 was a sham document According to these defendants, defendant 1 permanently settled the lands in dispute with defendant 2 in the year 1345 Fasli, and since the date of that settlement defendant 3 has all along been coining in possession of the same. They averred that defendant 2 had been rightly held to be in possession by the criminal Courts. It was further pleaded by the defendants that the suit was barred by general and special law of limitation. On these and other pleas they asserted that the suit was fit to be dismissed.

(3.) The suit was heard by the learned Subordinate Judge, Madhipura, who accepted the version of the plaintiffs and held that the lands in suit had been settled with plaintiff 1. He also held that plaintiff 2 had acquired a valid title to one half of the said lands by virtue of the sale deed dated 2-12-1930. He held that the plaintiffs were in possession of the lands in suit till the "proceeding under Section 145, Criminal P. C. According to him, the alleged settlement by defendant 1 with defendant 2 was a sham transaction, and that defendant 2 never came in possession of the lards in suit. The learned Subordinate Judge further held that the suit was not barred by limitation. On these findings the suit was decreed with costs. The amount of mesne profits was ordered to be ascertained in a subsequent proceeding.