DEGAN MAHTO Vs. KUMAR KAMAKHYA NARAYAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This litigation commenced so long ago as January 25, 1923, and it is with much reluctance that I have come to the conclusion that a second remand to the final Court of fact is essential. Unfortunately the matter was at first dealt with by an-officiating Subordinate Judge who had no acquaintance with Chota Nagpur conditions.

(2.) The proprietor of the Ramgarh Estate sued for resumption (with certain exceptions) of village Dhobari in Thana Bagodar on the allegation that he was entitled to resume on the death in 1921 of Sukho Mahto, the last survivor of two persons Lilo and Sukho Mahto to whom the estate had in 1922 S. granted an istimrari mukarrari tenancy of the village in the well-known form and for a declaration that the entry "non-resumable khuntkatti" made in Khewat No. 2 and its Sub-heads was erroneous and made without jurisdiction. The exceptions were such lands as were held by the defendants or any of them as raiyats having khuntkatti rights.

(3.) The defence substantially was that the tenancy of the village was held not upon the istimrari mukarrari lease of 1922 S. but on a mohtoai grant, Ex. A, for reclamation of an undeveloped tract of land within village Ambadih made to Gopali Mahto by the plaintiff's predecessor in 1823. Section(equivalent to 1766 A.D.) that the defendants and their ancestors had been in possession from that date and that the tenancy was not liable to resumption in any contingency. Under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, such a tenancy is recognized as khuntkatti and the entry "non-resumable khuntkatti" is quite, correct. The patta of 1922 S super imposed upon their original right did not effect. any alteration in the original status of the defendants or the incidents of their tenancy.