BRIJ MOHAN DAS Vs. BHIKHUJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It was suggested by Dr. Katju who appeared on behalf of the appellant that the appeal may be referred to a Bench of two Judges. I am not in agreement with such a request. If a matter is of some difficulty for decision it does not necessarily follow that it should be referred to a Bench of two Judges. The decision of a single Judge, if so permitted, is open to appeal to such a Bench and no reason is apparent why the ordinary rule of procedure should not be followed in every case.

(2.) The dispute in this case relates to a right of what is known as "lagan." It is a right peculiar to religious places situated on the banks of a river. A river in India which in its course is generally as unstable as a maiden often leaves its course or overlaps the neighbouring land. Prie3ts provide for religious necessities of Hindus, sitting on the bank of the river over a certain plot of land known as "ghat." The proprietorship rests with certain men of substance who are nonresident and they allot this "ghat" to Brahmins. This allotment is sometimes sold. When the front portion of the allotment is sold a situation arises that may be expected by the rising of the water and the priest carrying on his trade very close to the river finds his allotment covered by water. In such a situation he arranges for a right to occupy the back portion of the "ghat." At the time of purchasehe makes an arrangement with the vendor who is in possession of the rest ofthe "ghat" to permit him to carry on his business further back. No difficulty arises so long as the original holder of the allotment continues in possession of the. back portion of the "ghat" because whatever the nature of the right may be, the vendor is contractually bound to accommodate the purchaser of the front portion of the "ghat." Trouble arises when the back portion is also sold, and the question for decision then would be whether the purchaser of the back portion would be bound to accommodate the purchaser of the front portion on the rising of the river in any case or only if he had notice of the previous contract between the purchaser of the front portion of the ghat" and the original owner. Such a dispute arises here.

(3.) The plaintiff Bhikhuji when washed out of his front portion claimed to carry on his business in the back portion purchased by the minor Brijmohan Das defendant and not being permitted to do so brought this suit for a declaration that he was entitled to a right of "lagan" on the northern half of the "ghat" during the rainy season when he is washed out of the western portion of his two "ghats." The defence was that the right claimed by the plaintiff was of the nature of a right enunciated in para. 2, Section 40, T. P. Act, and that the plaintiff cannot enforce it as against the defendant without proving notice of this contract to Brijmohan Das at the time the latter made his purchase. This defence was not accepted by either of the two subordinate Courts The defendant has therefore come here in second appeal. Neither Court however has considered the case in its broad outline because, as is usual with litigants other false defences were included and an attempt was made to prove that the transfer in favour of the plaintiff was fraudulent.