KUMAR SORADINDU ROY Vs. GIRISH MOHINI DEVI CHOWDHURANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present case comes before us in our revisional jurisdiction, and the main ground on which exception is taken by the petitioner to the order of the learned District Judge is that there is no dispute between the co-owners of this estate such as is contemplated by Section 93 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.

(2.) It is clear that the District Judge bestowed much pains upon the case. He has set out in his judgment in some detail the history of the relations between the co owners during the past quarter of a century or so. It is a history of quarrels and consequent mismanagement, which must have resulted in considerable loss to the co-owners individually and collectively. Towards the end of his judgment the District Judge states his conclusion as follows: On a careful consideration of the evidence in the case, I am clearly of opinion that there are serious disputes between the co-owners of the estate No. 204 as to the management thereof. The result of their disputes, as I have stated before, has been that collection of rents has at times come to a standstill, that no surveys and settlements of newly formed lands have been systematically and periodically made, (that) the lands which belonged to the estate have, in consequence of there being no surveys and settlements, been either lying waste or in the enjoyment of persons who do not pay any rent for them, causing loss of thousands of rupees to the owners of the estate, and that lands belonging to the estate have been taken possession of by neighbouring zemindars and no attempts made to get them back with the help of the Law Courts. These are certainly injuries to private rights and injuries of grave and substantial nature. There can be no doubt that these injuries are the result of mismanagement, which again is due to the disputes existing between the co-owners of the estate.

(3.) It cannot be said that in arriving at these very positive findings the learned District Judge overlooked the requirements of Section 93. On the contrary his language shows that he had the Section before him, and the order which he made, was made with a view to the preservation of the estate as a whole.