DWIJENDRA NARAIN ROY Vs. JOGES CHANDRA DE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two appeals by the first and the second defendant respectively, in a suit for recovery of possession of land and mesne profits, upon declaration of title. The facts material for the determination of the questions in controversy are beyond dispute and may be briefly recited.

(2.) On the 17 January, 1913, the first defendant executed four documents in favour of the plaintiff, namely: (1) a patni patta in respect of lands described in schedule ha of the plaint; (2) a darpatni patta in respect of lands described in schedule kha of the plaint; (3) a mourasi mokrari patta of the de-buttar lakhraj resumed chakran lands described in schedules ga, gha and una of the plaint; and (4) a maurasi mokrari patta of the aima and resumed chowkidari chakran lands described in schedule cha of the plaint.

(3.) The first and second documents were taken in the name of the plaintiff himself; the third and fourth documents were taken by the plaintiff in the name of the third defendant. On the 19 March, 1913, the four documents were tendered for registration. The executant at first admitted but subsequently denied execution. The result was that the Sub-Registrar refused registration on the 7 May, 1913; this order was confirmed by the Registrar on the 21st October, 1913. On the 19 November, 1913, the plaintiff, along with the third defendant, instituted a suit against the first defendant to enforce registration of the documents under the provisions of Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act. The defendant contended that the deeds had been materially altered after he had executed them, and pleaded in substance that the documents presented for registration did not represent the real agreement between the parties. The Subordinate Judge found against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit on the 3rd March, 1915. On appeal to this Court, Fletcher and Newbould, JJ. on the 24 May, 1917, remitted the case to the trial Court for a finding on the issue whether a document which purported to be a bainanama or deed of agreement dated the 6 November, 1912, was executed between the parties. The Subordinate Judge, after full enquiry, held on the 8th October, 1917, that the document was the original bainanama executed between the parties. On receipt of this finding, Fletcher and Newbould, JJ., heard the appeal on the merits and on the 4 June, 1918, came to the conclusion that the decree of dismissal made by the trial Court could not be sustained. The result was that the appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed. The judgment of the High Court stated that the Court was unable to agree with the Subordinate Judge that the documents had been tampered with by the plaintiff; on the other hand, it was explicitly found that they were in the form provided by the contract between the parties, that the bainanama was a genuine document, which supported most strongly the case for the plaintiff, and that all the surrounding circumstances and the evidence suggested that the documents were, executed by the defendant. The defendant thereupon appealed to His Majesty ins Council. On the 10 November, 1920, Lord Moulton delivered judgment in the following terms: "Their Lordships accept the judgment of the High Court and the reasons which they give for that judgment and they will humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed with costs." Thus terminated the previous litigation. But two incidents, which had happened during its pendency, may be conveniently mentioned here. On the 25 May, 1915, after the dismissal of the suit by the primary Court, the first defendant executed four leases in favour of the second defendant who took possession of the disputed property on the basis of the title thus acquired. On the 22nd June, 1918, after the suit had been decreed on appeal by the High Court, the four documents executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff were duly registered.