KUMAR KALANAND SINGH Vs. KUMAR KAMALANAND SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit relates to an estate which is divided into a number of separate villages. The estate was settled about 70 years ago and at that time the revenue assessed on the predecessors of the defendants, whom we may call Sunagar, was fixed at Rs 991; while that assessed on the predecessors of the plaintiff, whom we may call Banaili, was fixed at Rs. 4,371, the total revenue of the whole estate which was a single estate being Rs. 5,365. Partition proceedings took place between Banaili and Sunagar and while they were still pending, this suit was brought by Banaili for a declaration that they owned certain shares specified in the schedule to the plaint in the different villages of the estate and that Sunagar also owned specified shares. The share claimed by Banaili in the two villages Madhubanx and Chhit Moranga was the entire 16-annas. The suit was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge and the plaintiff appeals to this Court.

(2.) The point in dispute is really a very short one and is simply this--whether the interest of Banaili in the estate is proportionate to their liability to the Government revenue, or is it the sum of their interests in the different villages of which the estate is made up?

(3.) That the interest of a proprietor in a joint e3tate may consist of specified parcels of land, and may, therefore, in the course of time bear no real proportion to the amount of Government revenue originally assessed on him is clear from Section 5 of the Estates Partition Act. It is not necessary for us in this case to consider whether the parties may or may not claim are distribution of the liability to Government revenue.