RAM PRASAD SINGH Vs. MOHAN MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against a decision of the District Judge of Manbhum, partly affirming and partly reversing a decision of the Munsif of Purulia. The facts are these. The plaintiff-appellant instituted a suit for recovery of possession of certain land which he claimed to be a part of his tabedari tenure in village Sirkabad appertaining to Pargana Kasaipar District Manbhum, the case being that the tabedari tenure was inalienable and succession to it was governed by the rule of lineal primogeniture. He alleged that the land in suit was part of the khorposh land of the junior members of his family which reverted to him on their line becoming extinct. He further alleged that the junior members without any right created encumbrances in favour of the defendants or their ancestors and on the reversion of the khorposh tenure to him he was entitled to avoid them. The suit was for recovery of possession by annulling these encumbrances. There were twenty-three defendants in the suit.

(2.) The learned Munsif dismissed the suit against defendants 21 to 23 on the ground that those defendants had occupancy rights in land in their possession. He however decreed it against defendants Nos. 1 to 20. Two appeals against this decree were then preferred to the District Judge of Manbhum. Appeal No. 309 of 1929 was on behalf of defendants Nos. 2 to 10 and Appeal No. 323 of 1929 was on behalf of the plaintiff against the defendants Nos. 21 to 23. The learned District Judge decreed the appeal of the defendants, and dismissed that of the plaintiff. In effect he seems to have dismissed the entire suit of the plaintiff. I will have to revert to this point later on. The plaintiff has now preferred two second appeals against the decrees of the learned District Judge passed in the two appeals aforesaid. Appeal No. 1252 of 1931 relates to that part of the suit which affects defendants Nos. 21 to 23.

(3.) This appeal is not pressed, and it is obvious that there is no merit in it inasmuch as there is a concurrent finding of fact that so far as the defendants are concerned they are holding the land as raiyats, and have acquired occupancy rights therein. The main controversy is about the points which arise in Appeal No. 1251 of 1931. The learned Munsif decreed the plaintiff's suit holding that succession to tabedari tenures in general is governed by the rule of lineal primogeniture to which inalienability and impartibility is a necessary incident. He held that the status of the junior members of the family of the plaintiff who were holding the land and who created the encumbrances in dispute, must have been that of a khorposhdar because the tenure being impartible, they could not have been share- holders.