RAMGOPAL DAS NASKAR Vs. PURNACHANDRA ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question raised in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen is whether the disputed land belongs to the residuary share or to separate account No. 3 of Touzi No. 1 of the 24.Pargana Collectorate. THE defendants, appellants are transferees of one Atul Chatterjee, who purchased the residuary share at a sale held for realisation of arrears of revenue. THE learned Munsiff gave the plaintiffs a decree which was affirmed by the learned Subordinate Judge on appeal. Both the Courts found that the property formed part of the separate account and the trouble was due to clerical mistakes made by clerks in the Collectorate. THE first point taken on behalf of the appellants is that the lower Courts were not justified in coming to this finding of fact because certain documents were misconstrued. On the other hand it has been naturally contended for the plaintiffs that this is a finding of fact which cannot be questioned in second appeal. THEre can be no question that by mistake the clerks in the Collectorate forgot to enter the number of the separate account against this particular share. THE respondents attempted to have the matter set right by the Deputy Collector. This officer found that there was a mistake but came to the conclusion that he had no jurisdiction to correct it. THEre are no documents which require construing in order to arrive at this finding. THE only thing upon which the appellants rely is the absence of any reference to this particular share in this particular pargana in certain application for mutation. That is not really a matter of construction of documents, and if it were, the lower Courts are transparently right.

(2.) THE next point taken is that the; plaintiffs are estopped from showing their title. This argument is based on the omission of any reference to this share in this pargana to which I have already referred in dealing with the first point. An order for mutation is an order made by a Revenue Officer in the exercise of functions conferred upon him by the land Registration Act. He alone is responsible for it. Notices in connection with a sale are also published by the Colleotorate and upon his own responsibility. THE proprietors are in no way responsible for it and have nothing to do with it. THEre are in fact no materials on which any plea of estoppel can be founded. THE mistake in the sale-proclamation was due to mistakes committed by the clerks in the Collectorate, Thirdly it is contended that the suit is barred by Section 33 of Act 11 of 1859. On this point it is enough to say that the suit is not one to annul the sale. THE plaintiffs do not even contend that the sale is not a good one. Fourthly it is contended that the suit is barred by limitation on the ground that time began to run against the plaintiffs from the date when the clerks first made the clerical error. For this proposition reliance is placed on the case reported in Francis Legge V/s. Rambaran Singh (1397) 20 All 35. In my judgment that authority really supports the case of the plaintiffs. A mere clerical error in the Collector's register does not throw any cloud on the plaintiff's title. It is only when they attempted to have the error corrected and the Deputy Collector refused to do so that it became necessary for them to institute the suit. It is therefore within time. Lastly it is contended that the plaintiffs cannot have share in individual parganas different from their share in the total estate. Proprietors frequently for their convenience come to an arrangement of this kind by which one set of proprietors have a larger share in one pargana and a lesser one in another. Of course such an arrangement would not bind the Collector or affect an auction-purchaser at a revenue sale unless it was made with the consent of the Collector, In this case this was done and She particular share in this particular pargana was included in the plaintiffs separate account. All the points taken in support of the appeal fail and the appeal is dismissed with costs. Leave to file an appeal Under Clause 15, Letters Patent has been asked for in this case and the leave has been refused.