SURYAJIRAO GANPATRAO JAHAGIRDAR Vs. SIDHANATH DHONDDEO GARUD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs sued to obtain a declaration that the defendant was not entitled to claim more than Rs. 87-9-11 per year fixed by the original agreement, and to recover from the defendant Rs. 2,649-12-4 wrongfully recovered by the defendant with interest thereon and further interest till realisation, and for a permanent injunction to the defendant restraining him from demanding more than Rs. 87-9- 11 per year.

(2.) The plaintiffs title depended upon two documents, Exhibits 74 and 75. Those documents, we think, gave the plaintiflV predecessors-in-title the right to hold the land mentioned therein as permanent tenants on payment of the rents fixed by those documents. In 1911 and 1912 the defendant's property was being managed by the Court of Wards, and a notice of demand was served upon, the plaintiffs by the Collector on behalf of the Court of Wards claiming a higher rent or assessment to be levied on the plaintiffs land. An objection was raised in 1914 by the receiver of the plaintiffs property claiming that the Court of Wards had no right to make such a demand, and threatening that a suit would be filed for a declaration restraining the Collector from making such a demand. Nothing further occurred until 1916. A notice was then issued by the Collector under section 153 of the Land Revenue Code claiming the sums of Rs. 2,649 and Rs. 92-4-0 being the land revenue and local fund cess on plaintiffs survey numbers from the years 1911 to 191(5 and giving notice that if the arrears were not paid the Collector proposed to declare the holding to be forfeited. The plaintiffs paid under protest and filed this suit on November 20, 1919.

(3.) The first issue raised was whether Government was a necessary party to the suit. We think that the Judge below was right in holding that this property was at the time of the notice under the superintendence of the Court of Wards, that the claim was not made by Government but by the Collector acting on behalf of the defendant's estate, that the Government was not concerned with the recovery of the demand from the plaintiffs, and that therefore Government wan not a necessary party to this suit.