RAJENDRA NARAYAN SINGH DEO Vs. LALMOHAN TRIBENI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject-matter of this appeal is a triangular piece of land in or adjoining the town of Purulia at one time the village Purulia, which is owned by the Raja of Panchete. The land is approximately 15 acres in area. The defendants are the appellants in this appeal which arises out of an action by the plaintiff for a declaration of his title to and a claim for possession of the land in suit in the following circumstances: The Raja of Panchete granted a lease of some land to the Crown, defendant No. 1, in this case, (so it is alleged) in or about the year 1835, and at some later date--the exact date has not been established in this case and is immaterial--granted a patni lease of Mauza Purulia to the pre-decessor-in-interest of defendants Nos. 2 to 5. On September 3, 1926, these patnidars defendants Nos. 2 to 5, granted a lease of the land in dispute to the plaintiff at an annual rent of Rs. 118-2-0 and in consideration of a premium or salami of Rs. 15,000. It is alleged by the plaintiff that in seeking to take possession of the land he was resisted by one Jimat Bahan Sen who claimed an interest in a part of the land the particulars of which are set out in Schedule 2. of the plaint, under a lease. It has been suggested in this case that a part of the land in dispute was in the adjoining village of Naudiha but this point has not been developed by either party in this case. Proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code, were started and the Crown, intervening and represented by the police, was joined as a party. The claim of the Crown in those proceedings was that the land in dispute was a part of the Government lands and used by the Police as a parade ground; and that this land was included in the lease granted by the Raja of Panchete in 1835 or thereabouts, the lease to which I have just referred. The Magistrate deciding the proceedings came to the conclusion that the Crown was in possession of the land, and that it was used for the purpose I have mentioned. The plaintiff thus being ousted, or being held not to be in possession, commenced this action against the defendants, their lessors. The claim was for a declaration of his title, possession and alternatively the return of the premium paid, and other expenses.

(2.) The trial Judge has held that defendant No. 1, the Crown, was entitled to the land under the lease of 1835 and that the Crown is in possession, the lease including the land in dispute, and that consequently defendants Nos. 2 to 5 had no right to grant the land to the plaintiff in 1926. There is no dispute that the patni lease was subject to the lease to the Crown whatever may have been included in the latter. The Court below in those circumstances has given judgment for the plaintiff for the return of the salami or premium. Defendants Nos. 2 to 5 have appealed to this Court making the Crown and the plaintiff-respondents. The case of the appellants is that the disputed land was not comprised in the grant to the Crown by the Raja, and that, therefore, they were entitled as patnidars to grant the lease to the plaintiff, and, in those circumstances, the plaintiff is not entitled to the return of the premium. As an alternative plea the defendants-appellants contended that this claim for the return of the premium is barred by limitation. Defendant No. 1, the Crown, supports the finding of the Judge in the Court below as to its title, and the plaintiff-respondent naturally supports the judgment of the learned Judge in the Court below as to the return of the premium or salami.

(3.) In the circumstances the question to be decided is a very limited one. It is whether in the grant to the Crown in 1835 this triangular piece of land was included, and, as it will be seen, it becomes a question in the result of identification. A number of facts were not disputed in the trial Court, nor are they disputed in this Court. First, it is not disputed that the Crown had two leases of land in Purulia, one with a rental of Rs. 11-7-0 relating to some land adjoining the land in dispute with which we are not concerned, and another a lease relating to 35 acres 25 poles of land with an annual rental of Rs. 40-11-6. Included in that second lease was some land known as the parade ground. Secondly, it is not disputed that subject to the grant to the Crown defendants Nos. 2 to 5 became patnidars of the then village of Purulia. Lastly, the rent reserved under the second lease to the Crown has admittedly been and is being paid to the patnidars, defendants Nos. 2 to 5. As I have stated, the matter in the result becomes a question of identification.