JOGENDRA NARAIN SINGH Vs. RADHA PROSAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application on behalf of the plaintiffs against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Deoghar deciding three preliminary issues raised in the suit. These were issues 1, 2 and 3 and they are in the following terms: "(1) Is the court-fees paid sufficient ? (2) Has the suit been properly valued ? (3) Is the suit maintainable in this Court ?"

(2.) He an swered the first two issues against the plaintiffs and issue 3 in favour of the plaintiffs. As regards the first two issues he found that the suit ought to be valued at Rs. 51,040 and ad valorem court-fees should be paid upon this sum amounting to Rs. 1,785-8-0: The plaintiffs had paid a court-fee of Rs. 105 only and therefore it was declared that they were liable to pay a further sum of Rs. 1,680-8-0. By an order in the order-sheet dated 8 October 1931 the plaintiffs were allowed time till 16 November to pay the deficit court-fee of Rs. 1,680-8-0. The plaintiffs took time on 16 November and again on 16 December from the Subordinate Judge to pay the deficit court-fee. They filed the present application in this Court on 6 January 1932, challenging the correctness of the decision of the Subordinate Judge on the first two issues. The suit was for a declaration that plaintiff 1 was the ghatwal of the Kunjora ghatwali which is one of the Birbhum ghatwalis and is governed by Regn. 29 of 1814. Plaintiff 1 was dismissed from the office of ghatwal by an order of the Commissioner of Bhagalpur dated 15 March 1930, the dismissal taking effect from 1 April following, and defendant 1 was appointed ghatwal in his place. Plaintiff 2 is the son of plaintiff 1 and their case is that the office of ghatwal in this ghatwali descends from father to son and that no third person can be appointed. Plaintiff 1 alleged that his dismissal was unlawful. He then stated that if he could not be retained in the office of ghatwal then his son plaintiff 2 ought to be appointed and not defendant 1. Defendant 2 is the Secretary of State for India in Council.

(3.) The reliefs asked for in the plaint are these: (1) That it be declared that Kunjora is a ghatwali tenure which the holder thereof is entitled to hold generation after generation in perpetuity subject to the payment of the fixed and established rent and the performance of certain duties for the maintenance of the public peace and support of the police, (2) That it be declared that the plaintiff first party as the ghatwal of the said ghatwali tenure and his descendants in perpetuity are entitled to be maintained in possession of the said tenure and of the lands comprised therein as long as they pay the revenue assessed upon it. (3) That it be declared that the dismissal of the plaintiff first party from his office of ghatwal is improper, illegal and ultra vires. (4) That it be declared that assuming that the plaintiff first party was liable to dismissal for any just cause, the plaintiff second party as his descendant was in law entitled to and eligible for appointment of the office of ghatwal in his place and that the appointment of the defendant first party is inequitable, illegal, contrary to law and without jurisdiction. (5) That it be declared that the possession of the defendant first party over the ghatwali of Kunjora is wrongful and that the plaintiff first party or the plaintiff second party is entitled to possession. (6) That the plaintiff 1 party or the plaintiff second party as to the Court may seem fit and proper be put in possession of the said ghatwali Kunjora and. mesne profits be awarded to either of them from the date of the suit till recovery of possession, (7) That costs of the suit with interest thereon be awarded to the plaintiffs or to whichever of them may seam entitled thereto. (8) That further and other reliefs be granted to the plaintiffs or to either of them as in the circumstances of the case they may seem to be entitled thereto.