CHAND MUL Vs. NAKU MANJHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff and his lessor, defendant 4, against the dismissal by the lower appellate Court of the plaintiff's suit for a declaration that he has obtained from defendant 4 a permanent raiyati right in the land in suit and that the principal defendants (defendants 1 to 3) have no right, title or interest therein, and for a decree for confirmation of possession in respect of the land in suit, or, in the alternative, for recovery of possession of the same. The plaintiff also asked for damages and for a permanent injunction against the principal defendants restraining them from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the land in suit and for costs and such other relief as the plaintiff may be found entitled to. The pro forma defendant (defendant 4) Raja Wazir Narayan Singh is the proprietor of gadi Serampur in the District of Hazaribagh. The plaintiff obtained from him a raiyati lease of certain uncultivated lands situated in several villages of which 29068 acres, situated in village Jhalakdiha, is the subject matter of the present suit.

(2.) The plaintiffs case is that when after taking the lease he went to reclaim the land in question he was obstructed by the principal defendants. The result was a criminal case which was pending when the present suit was instituted. Similar suits were instituted by the plaintiff in respect of the lands of other villages against different defendants. All of them were tried together. We are however in this appeal concerned with one suit only, namely No. 85 of 1927. It was contested by defendants 1 to 3. They denied the right of defendant 4 to settle the lands with the plaintiff and alleged that the land in suit had all along been in their possession. Defendant 1, Nakoo Manjhi, according to the records prepared at the last settlement operation, is a pardhan of the village Jhalakdiha and defendants 2 and 3 are raiyats of the village. In the written statement of these three defendants however pardhani is claimed by all of them. The learned Munsif decreed the suit except in respect of the lands which had already been reclaimed by the raiyats of Jhalakdiha. On appeal by the defendants the learned Judicial Commissioner of Chota Nagpur has dismissed it. The plaintiff and defendant 4 have preferred this second appeal. The appeal was first disposed of on compromise, but on an application of defendant 1 the compromise decree was set aside and the appeal was heard on merits.

(3.) The land of village Jhalakdiha has been recorded under two khatas. Khata No. 1 which consists of about 300 acres is the subject-matter of the present suit and is the khas khata of the proprietor in his direct possession. The remaining land, also about 300 acres, has been recorded in khata No. 2, the pardhani khata of defendant 1. In the remarks column of khata No. 1, which consists of waste and jungle lands only, it is mentioned that the raiyats can reclaim the land of this khata with the permission of the pardhan. In the record of the customary rights of the pardhan (pardhani hakukat) it is recorded in column (gha) (6) that the pardhan has a right to settle the uncultivated lands of the village. The former entry is at least to be presumed to be correct and the latter about the customary rights of the pardhan is conclusive evidence of his rights under Section 132, Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. It is on the strength of these two entries that the learned Judicial Commissioner has held that the plaintiff did not acquire any valid raiyati right in the land in suit from the pro forma defendant, and that defendant had no right to make raiyati settlement of the land. Now the simple question involved in the appeal is whether the learned Judicial Commissioner is right in his interpretation of the effect of the two entries referred to above and whether the defendant 4 could make a raiyati settlement of the land ignoring the pardhan. I have already stated that the entries in the Record of Rights are both in the remarks column of the khatian of khata No. 1 which is recorded in the name of the proprietor and also in the record about the customary rights of the pardhan, and, in my opinion, on these entries the decision of the learned Judicial Commissioner is correct.