MAHOMED ABDOOL HAI Vs. GAJRAJ SAHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS suit, which relates to three villages, Ghouspore, Kadirpore, and Suratpore, situate in the district of Mozuferpore, in Tirhoot, was brought by Gujraj Sahai, one of the Respondents, in the Court of the District Judge, against the Secretary of State for India, and other Defendants, including the present Appellant, Abdool Hai. The plaint prays for confirmation of his right and possession, and for concelment of a certificate dated the 13th of January, 1886, issued under the Act No. VII. of 1880, and of an auction sale in execution of that certificate upon the 15th of April, 1886. The Appellant defends, on the ground that he acquired a valid right to the lands as purchaser at the sale sought to be cancelled. The Secretary of State applied for an extension of the time for lodging his written statement, but made no further appearance in the action, although his name appears as that of a Respondent in this appeal.

(2.) GUJRAJ Sahai, who may be properly described as the Respondent, in May, 1882, purchased the three villages in question from the Land Mortgage Bank of India, and in October, 1884, he was entered as proprietor in the land Register kept for the Mozuferpore district. The previous proprietors were Bibi Amina, Bibi Nisar Fatima, and Bibi Manzurul Fatima. Notwithstanding the purchase, and subsequent mutation of names in the land register, these ladies continued to be treated by the Collectorate as the proprietors liable for road cess; and the form of the proceedings taken by the Collector under Act No. VII. of 1880, which are the subject of controversy in this case, is obviously due to that circumstance. Demands of road cess made against Bibi Amina were duly met by the Respondent from the time of his purchase till the end of 1884; but none of the three instalments of cess falling due in the year 1885 were paid. Accordingly, Jogeswar Sahai, a tehsildar, to whom the collection of these instalments had been entrusted, reported to the Collector that the arrears of road cess in respect of the three villages amounted, with interest and commission, to Rs. 43 4a. 6p. The only names mentioned in the report are those of Bibi Amina and Bibi Nisar Fatima as the holders of the estate for which the arrears were due.

(3.) THE Appellant disputes the fact of payment, and maintains that the whole procedure was in conformity with the provisions of the Act of 1880, and that the property of the three villages has been duly vested in him as auction purchaser at the sale of the 15th of April, 1886.