PRAHLAD PD MODI Vs. TIKAITNI FALDANI KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications have been heard together as they arise out of the same case registered as title suit No. 23 of 1952 in the Court of the Sub-ordinate Judge at Deoghar. Civil Revision No. 1015 is by Prahlad Pd. & is directed against the order D/-7-10-1955, while Civil Revision No. 1075 is by S.K. Chatterjee and is directed against the order dated 2-8-1955. Both these petitioners in the Court be low were the third party objectors in a proceeding taken by them against the action of the party receiver appointed in the cause during the pendency of the appeal in the Supreme Court. Their common claim was that they had been in possession of the properties specified in their petitions from long before the date of the appointment of that receiver, e.g., Tikaitni Faldeni Kumari Ghatwalin, the plaintiff-appellant in the Supreme Court and now the common opposite party No. 1 in this Court, and that their possession over the same was based on their own independent paramount title, and therefore, in law under Order 40 Rule 1(2), Civil P. C. they were not liable to be removed from the possession of those properties at the instance of the receiver.

(2.) The subject-matter of claim in Civil Revision No. 1015 of 1955 is the Ramchandra Bazar and Hat while the property in Civil Revision No. 1075 of 1955 is the Basauri Mahal, both lying in the town of Madhupur in the district of Santhal Paraganas.

(3.) The controversy in title suit No. 23 of 1952 relates to the title of entire Birtahum Ghatwali commonly known as Pethrcle estate. This estate on the death of her husband vested in Faldani Kumari as the next Tikaitni some time in 1935 and she had been in possession thereof as such till 29-5-1952, when under Section 3, Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, that estate was notified to have passed to and become vested in the State of Bihar. Tikaitni Faldeni Kumari challenged the validity of the aforesaid notification and instituted a title suit which was registered as the aforesaid title suit No. 23 of 1952 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Deogharh, for a declaration that the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 did not apply to Pethrole estate, that being a ghatwali, & in the meantime prayed for injunction restraining the State of Bihar to interfere with her possession over the same. The prayer for injunction during the pendency of the suit was allowed but the suit itself ultimately on hearing was dismissed on merits. Thereupon Tikaitni Faldani Kumari filed an appeal against that decision in this Court which was registered as First Appeal No. 309 of 1954. This Court also during the pendency of the appeal had restrained the State of Bihar from interfering with her possession as Tikaitni. But that appeal too was lost by her ultimately. She has now, therefore, gone to the Supreme Court & there her appeal has been registered as Supreme Court Appeal No. 94 of 1954, and is still pending for disposal. It appears that on the very day when the leave for appeal in the Supreme Court was granted, she made an application here as well for an order of stay restraining the State of Bihar to interfere with her possession during the pendency of the appeal in that Court. But the Supreme Court instead of issuing an order for stay, as prayed for, appointed the plaintiff-appellant there as the receiver pendente lite of the estate in dispute by its order dated 23-12-1954. The relevant portion of that order reads: