SATYA CHARAN SHRIMANI Vs. SHIB CHARAN TRIGUNAIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in this suit relates to five small parcels of land situate in mauza Angarpathra in the Manbhum District of Chota Nagpur which belongs to certain persons who may conveniently be called the Trigunaits and who hereinafter will be referred to as the lessors. In 1894, the lessors granted a mining lease of 100 bighas of land to Jogendra Sreemani, and a few days later a similar lease of 101 bighas lying east of Sreemani's grant to Nagendra Mitra. In each instance the demised land was divided into two blocks by the Railway line which runs through the mauza from west to east. Plaintiff-appellants No. 2, the National Goal Company, are the present sub lessees of the land leased to Sreemani while the defendants respondents, who are also Trigunaits and own a one third share of the proprietary interests have acquired the leasehold interest of Nagendra Mitra. On January 8, 1925, the Record of Rights in respect of Angarpathra was finally published. Plots Nos. 306,357 and 358, which, plaintiffs allege, fall within the boundaries of their grant south of the Railway line, were recorded on the basis of possession in the gairmazrua malik khatian of the defendants-respondents tenure, and plots Nos. 341 and 342, which they allege fall within their grant north of the line, were recorded as appertaining to plaintiffs leasehold, but in the possession of the defendants as subordinate tenure-holders to the plaintiffs and as holding belagan, kabit lagan.

(2.) The present suit was instituted on March 2,1928, by Satya Charan Sreemani, son of Jogendra Sreemani and the National Coal Company. Plaintiffs prayed for a declaration of their title to the disputed plots and for recovery of possession and for a declaration that the eastern and southern boundaries of their grants are as shown in a map prepared by a Commissioner appointed for the purpose in Title Suit No. 132 of 1910. The learned Subordinate Judge found that there were no materials before him from which the boundaries between the plaintiffs and defendants leasehold land could be ascertained; that the plaintiffs had never been in possession of the plots in dispute; and that the defendants title to these plots must be presumed from the fact that they were and had always been in possession of them. He, therefore, dismissed the suit and the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal. The first contention of the appellants is that in so far as their title to the disputed plots has been recorded in the Record of Rights, the onus of displacing the presumption of correctness attaching to the entry by reason of Section 84(3), Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, lies on the respondents. In reply to this contention it was argued on behalf of the respondents that the land in dispute being non-agricultural land, the preparation of the Record of Rights was ultra vires the survey authorities and that consequently no presumption of correctness attaches to the entries in it.

(3.) In support of the first part of this proposition reference was made to the decisions in Raniganj Coal Association, Ltd. V/s. Jadoonath Ghose 105 Ind. Cas. 299 : A.I.R. 1927 Mad. 908 : 26 L.W. 355 : 53 M.L.J. 407, E.J. Rooke V/s. Bengal Coal Co. Ltd. (1920) A.C. 324 : 122 L.T. 530 : 89 L.J.K.B. 323, and Bhola Nath Das V/s. Durga Prasad Singh 124 Ind. cas. 332 : A.I.R. 1930 Cal.298 : 57 C.634 : 33 C.W.N. 1048 : Ind. Rul. (1930) Cal. 428. The first of these cases was a suit for recovery of rent and one of the questions which arose was whether it was governed by the general law of limitation contained in Art. 116, Limitation Act, 1908, or by Art, 2, Schedule 3, Bengal Tenancy Act 1885. The question whether Chap. 10, Bengal Tenancy Act, relating to the preparation of the Record of Rights applied did not arise. E.J. Rooke V/s. Bengal Coal Co., Ltd. (1920) A.C. 324 : 122 L.T. 530 : 89 L.J.K.B. 323, was also a suit to recover rent and the only question agitated was whether the suit was entertainable by the Revenue Court or whether it should have been instituted in the ordinary Civil Court.