DALUCHAD FULCHAND GANDHI Vs. GULABBHAI KANTHADJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The village of Moyad-vas-Rupaji is a talukdari village. The talukdar owner was at one time a minor and the District Court appointed a Government Officer as his guardian, and in consequence of this guardianship the Talukdari Settlement Officer and under him the viamlatdar of the Prantij Taluka had the revenue management of this village, The village was leased to a certain person in consideration of the extinction of certain debts due from the talukdar. The latter part of the period of this lease became vested in one Makhwad Gafoor, and it was during this period that the events with which we are concerned happened. Makhwad maintained that the landholders of the village were paying far too little by way of assessment. The khatedars maintained that they were paying what was customary and all that they could properly be called on to pay. Both sides sent petitions to the mamlatdar, and, on the 20th of March 1911, this officer visited the village in order to find out for himself what was the true state of the case. As the result of what he discovered in the village he came to the conclusion, as his subsequent reports clearly show, that the leaseholder was receiving mush less by way of assessment than he was entitled to. He, whilst in the village, caused the property of two of these khatedars to be attached. He also advised Makhwad, the leaseholder, to file what are called Assistance Suits against certain of the khatedars for the recovery of what he claimed to be due for the current year. Some of these suits were subsequently disposed of by the mamlatdar in favour of the leaseholder. One of the persons whose property was attached, and against whom one of these suits was filed, was the plaintiff in this present suit, and briefly stated, the plaintiff asserts that on the occasion of the mamlatdar s visit to this village on the 20th of March 1911 he struck the plaintiff with a shoe and with a stick; that he wrongfully entered his house; wrongfully attached certain ornaments and wrongfully took away certain account-books of his. The mamlatdar denies that he struck the plaintiff. He admits that he had the ornaments and the account-books taken away from the plaintiff, but submits that this was not wrongful, and in any event he pleads that he acted in pursuance of the law and is protected by Section 6 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act.

(2.) The really material issues of fact in this case are two; (1) whether the mamlatdar did strike the plaintiff, and (2) whether he attached the ornaments on account of arrears of assessment for past years, or on account of the assessment of the then current year. The Joint Judge of Ahmedabad who tried the suit found both these issues in favour of the mamlatdar defendant and he dismissed the suit entirely.

(3.) I will now deal with the first of these two issues. After having read the evidence, and heard it commented on, I can find no convincing reason for supposing that the Court below was wrong in holding that it was not proved that the mamlatdar had struck the plaintiff. There is no doubt that the events which have happened have given rise to a great deal of bitterness between the parties, and where this is so, and where we have, as here, a considerable boy of landholders in a village ranged on one side against the proceedings of a superior holder and a revenue officer, it is not to be expected that we should have an accurate account of events from the villagers; and it seems to me that where a Judge who heard the evidence and saw the witnesses, and, as in this case, disbelieved the evidence of a personal assault by the mamlatdar, it would require some very convincing reasons to justify a Court of Appeal in reversing his conclusion. Those convincing reasons are not present in this case. So I think that the conclusion of the Trial Judge on this point must be confirmed.