CHANDRA NATH SAHAI Vs. JANKI PROSAD SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs sued for declaration of their jagirdari right in the plot of land 882 in village Bargaon which they allege they settled with plaintiffs 4 to 9 in raiyati right.

(2.) Their case is that the village is their jagir property and that the disputed land was the bakasht till it was settled in raiyati with plaintiffs 4 to 9 but that they have been dispossessed by the defendants as a result of proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P.C., in 1926. The defence was that the land was not the jagir of the plaintiffs, they had never been in possession and that their suit is barred by limitation. The Munsif of Ranchi decreed the suit finding title with the plaintiffs and they had been in possession within 12 years of the suit and his decision was affirmed on appeal by the Subordinate Judge of Ranchi. In second appeal the learned advocate Mr. B.N. Mitter for the appellants tried to challenge the finding of both the Courts as to title and possession but the findings are the result of a careful consideration of the case of both sides and cannot be challenged in second appeal. They are to my mind clearly correct and no point of law arises.

(3.) The second point pressed by Mr. Mitter was this: the suit was brought by three plaintiffs originally who were brothers, they having been recorded in the proprietary khewat of the village; during the pendency of the suit before the Munsif, plaintiff 1, Kishun Narayan Sahu, died and the remaining plaintiffs 2 and 3 brought the fact to the notice of the Court on 24 September 1927 by a petition and the petition was to the effect that the name of plaintiff 1 should be struck out from the category of the plaintiffs. The petition was an unverified one and had to be returned for verification; this was done and the plaint was amended as prayed for. It is contended now in second appeal that the plaintiff 1 having died during the pendency of the suit it abated entirely inasmuch as all the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff were not brought on the record. Now this point was not taken before the Munsif, nor was it taken in the grounds of appeal before the Subordinate Judge, so we do not know the facts. According to what Mr. Mitter says Kishun Narayan Sahu left no sons; he states that the heirs are the sons of plaintiff 2, Janki Prosad Sahu and plaintiff 3, Haricharan Sahu, and that they should be on the record. It is not enough, he contends, to have Janki Prosad Sahu and Haricharan Sahu on the record as plaintiffs.