DEBNATH MAHATA Vs. JAGADISH CHANDRA DEO DHABAL DEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four miscellaneous appeals arise out of four proceedings for execution of rent decrees obtained by the respondent against the appellants. The question involved in all these cases is the same, namely whether the pradhani tenancy of the appellant in each case is liable to be sold in execution of the decree against him. The respondent, who is the Raja of Dhalbhum, started ten execution cases to enforce his ten rent decrees against the pradhans and wanted to bring their pradhani tenancies to sale. The learned Deputy Collector of Singhbhum, before whom the executions were started, of his own motion and without any objection on the part of the judgment-debtors summarily held that the pradhanis were not saleable. The respondent appealed. The Judicial Commissioner of Manbhum (Mr. Najabat Hossain) by his order, dated 29 September 1934, reversed the orders of the Deputy Collector, holding that the pradhani tenancies were saleable. All the ten judgment-debtors preferred second appeals to this Court. When the cases came up before us for hearing, we found that the decisions of the Courts below were based entirely upon general grounds, and not upon any examination of the incidents of the particular tenancies involved in these cases.

(2.) While the learned Deputy Collector held as I have said that the pradhanis were not saleable, the learned Judicial Commissioner held that the pradhanis were tenures and tenures were saleable in execution of rent decrees. There were no materials on the record to enable us to determine the incidents of the tenancies of the appellants. We, therefore, allowed the parties to produce necessary documents, and the same were produced. But the number of documents intended to be produced was large, and examination of witnesses appeared necessary. Accordingly, we decided to remand the cases under Order 41, Rule 25, Civil P.C. with a direction to the Judicial Commissioner to receive such evidence as may be adduced by the parties and then to determine whether the pradhani in each of the ten cases is liable to be sold in execution of a rent decree either under the custom prevailing in the locality or under the law in force in the district. Mr. Dalziel, who had succeeded Mr. Najabat Hossain, received the evidence adduced by the parties and also considered the documents which were filed in this Court and taken in evidence by us and has remitted his finding to this Court. It is this finding of Mr. Dalziel which is now under consideration and will be referred to as the judgment of the Judicial Commissioner. He has held that the pardhanis in six out of the ten cases were liable to be sold. This finding was not questioned by the appellants of those cases and, therefore, those six appeals (M.A. Nos. 77 to 82 of 1935) were dismissed by our order, dated 20 April 1936. In the four cases which are now before us, the finding of the learned Judicial Commissioner is that they are not saleable. The respondent has filed objections against this finding, and we have to determine whether the view taken by the learned Judicial Commissioner is correct.

(3.) Pradhan under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act comes within the definition of village-headman which means the headman of a village or of a group of villages, whether known as manki, or pradhan, or manjhi or otherwise or by an equivocal designation, such as thicadar or ijatadar. Section 127(1) of the Act authorizes the local Government to make an order directing that a record be prepared by a Revenue Officer of the rights and obligations in any specified local area of ... (b) village-headmen.... Then there is an explanation to this section which runs thus: The word rights as used in this sub-section includes the right of a village headman to hold his office, as well as his right to hold land.