KUMAR GOPIKA RAMAN ROY Vs. ATAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff Kumar Gopika Raman, Bay who is the appellant before us, sued for khas possession of a large area of land about 20 square miles in village Patharkandy in the Karimgung Sub-Division of the District of Sylhet. He claimed the land as appertaining to permanently settled Estate No. 85 of the Sylhet Collectorate of which, he owns a 1/7 share. In Schedule I of the plaint the lands of Mouza Patharkandy in Estate No. 85 are described. Schedule II specifies the lands which were allotted to this 1/7 share by an amicable partition between the predecessor-in-interest. the Maharaja of Manipur and his co-sharers. In Schedules III and IV ale set out certain lands which though parts of the land of Schedule II are not included in the claim of the present suit. The lands of Schedule III were acquired by Government under the Land Acquisition Act. The land of Schedule IV was the subject of the previous suit in which the plaintiff a father obtained a decree for khas possession-after ejectment of the tenant defendant, Abjal Ali.

(2.) The suit was brought against 187 defendants. The first 160 were sued as tenants in occupation of the lands in. suit but it was alleged that their tenancies had been determined by reason of 120 suits brought by the plaintiffs father against these defendants or their predecessors-in-interest in the years 1903 and 1904. The majority of these defendants are Manipuris but among them are a few Muhammadans and one Hindu of Patni caste. Defendant No. 161 Molay Chand Thakur was joined as a defendant on the allegation that defendant No. 148 Dinamani Singh had executed a collusive and fictitious deed of conveyance in his name. Defendants Nos. 162 to 186 were joined as pro forma defendants being the plaintiff's co- sharers in Estate No. 85. Defendant No. 187 Juramal Tushniwal was the purchaser of the 1/7 share of the Estate which had belonged to the Maharaja of Manipur and the plaintiffs father bought the rights of the defendants.

(3.) The suit was instituted on the 7 October 1912 and was dismissed on the 24 March 1919. The appeal was filed on the 13 August 1919. In addition to the time taken in the actual hearing of the suit, much delay was unavoidable owing to the necessity of making substitution on the deaths of several of the original defendants. As it is, necessary substitutions have not been made in all cases of death among the first 160 defendants both during the hearing of the suit and the pendency of this appeal.