RAMCHANDRA SETH Vs. SRINATH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defendants and it arises out of Title Suit No. 24 of 1948, which was tried by the court below analogous to another title suit, namely, Title suit No. 38 of 1949. We are not concerned with the latter title suit in this appeal. Title suit No. 24 of 1948 was filed originally by Raja Jagarnath Singh, son of Raja Ran Bahadui Singh and after the death of Jagarnath Singh, his minor son, Sri Nath Singh, was substituted in place-of the sole plaintiff. The facts to be found in the plaint are with respect to Jagarnath Singh as the, original plaintiff.

(2.) There is an estate in the district of Hazari-bagh known as Palganj Estate, the inheritance to which was governed by the custom of lineal primo-geniture. Raja Paras Nath Singh was the proprietor of this estate in the year 1903. During his time the management of the estate was taken over by the Encumbered Estate under the provisions of the Chotanagpur Encumbered Estates Act (Act VI of 1876), Paras Nath Singh died in the year 1907 and: he was succeeded by his son, Ran Bahadur Singh, father of the plaintiff, Jagarnath Singh, since deceased. In 1918, the estate was released from the management of the Encumbered Estate Manager. According to the case of the original plaintiff, his father Ran Bahadur Singh was a man of weak intellect and was entirely dependent on his amlas who always dominated on him in the affairs of the estate. Ran Bahadur Singh was duped by the defendants or by their ancestors to execute a handnote for a sum of Rs. 17,889 on 22-7-1925. Money suit No. 18 of 1928 was filed by Kishori Lal, deceased brother of Ram Chandra Seth, defendant No. I, for recovery of Rs. 28,291/1 based upon the said handnote in the court of the Additional Subordinate Judge at Hazaribagh against Ran Bahadur Singh. Ran Bahadur Singh was duped by the defendants with the aid of the amlas to compromise that suit which was compromised for a sum of Rs. 30,151/- plus costs to the extent of Rs. 1791/10/-. The decree was put in execution in Execution Case No. 108 of 1930 and again the Raja was duped to compromise the execution case also. Thereafter another execution case, namely, execution case No. 63/104 of 1932 was filed by the defendants in which the properties in question, namely, the 16th villages were put to sale and were sold in court auction on 5-11-1932. It was alleged by the plaintiff that in this execution case also all the processes were suppressed and the plaintiff, namely, Jagarnath Singh had no knowledge of the execution and the sale held thereunder. The Raja thereafter filed an application for setting aside the sale and being deceived by the amlas the Raja was duped by the defendants to file a compromise petition, which petition according to the case of the plaintiff amounted to a mortgage by conditional sale.

(3.) Plaintiff's case further was that Raja Paras Nath Singh was the karta of a joint Hindu family and he was holding the estate on behalf of the joint family. The encumbered estate Manager had taken over the estate on behalf of the joint family and when it was released to Ran Bahadur Singh, he was also holding the estate on behalf of the entire family including the plaintiff. The estate was released subject to the provisions of Section 12-A of the Chotanagpur Encumbered Estates Act of 1876 according to which Ran Bahadur Singh was not authorised to deal with the properties without the consent of the Commissioner. In that view of the matter all transactions entered by Han Bahadur Singh with the defendants were attacked as void, illegal and not binding upon the plaintiff. The estate was again taken over for management by the Encumbered Estate in the year 1940. The Manager of the estate thereafter took delivery of possession of all the villages of the estate including the 16 villages in question under Section 16 of the Chotanagpur Encumbered Estates Act. After taking possession, the Manager began to make collections of rent and the defendants had no right to keep possession over the villages as their only remedy was to prefer a claim before the Proper authority for their dues under the alleged mortgage by conditional sale. But the defendants began to interfere with the possession of the Encumbered Estate since the year 1942 and began to make collections forcibly from some tenants. They also succeeded in securing some decrees in court and the result was that the Encumbered Estate was dispossessed from some villages. Hence the suit was brought by the original plaintiff praying that his title concerning the original villages be declared and it be further declared that the defendants have no right, title and interest therein. A prayer, however, was made for recovery of possession of the entire 16 villages. In the alter-native it was also prayed that the compromise in execution case No. 63 of 1932 created the rights of mortgagee by way of conditional Sale in favour of the defendants and that the rights of the defendants came to an end when the Manager took over the management of the estate. A prayer for injunction was also made restraining the defendants from making any collection.