KIRTYANAND SINHA Vs. RAMANAND SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an action for an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the common management of the property known as the Banaili Raj. The case was commenced in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bhagalpur and by an order of this Court transferred to this Court, the parties agreeing to waive the formal proof of all documents and to confine their arguments to questions of law.

(2.) The plaintiff is Raja Kirtyanand Sinha Bahadur who was the second son of the late Raja Leelanand Sinha. Defendant 1 is Kumar Ramanand Sinha, who was the son of the brother of the plaintiff, and defendant 2 is Kumar Krishnanand Sinha who was the second son of the brother of the plaintiff. They are described as defendants first party. The other defendant is Rani Chandrabati, widow of Kumar Chandranand Sinha who was the son of Raja Padmanand Sinha and was a brother of the plaintiff, is described as defendant second party. This defendant is no longer in the case. She died during the course of the action and the plaintiff has taken no steps to obtain substitution. For a very long time (it is certainly since the year 1880) the members of this family have been separate and for an almost equally long time their property the Banaili Raj has been managed by a common manager appointed by them all. Their shares originally were as between the plaintiff and the defendants first party 9 annas and Raja Padmanand Sinha Bahadur 7 annas.

(3.) The present state of the shares in the Raj now enjoyed by the parties is that the plaintiff and the defendant first party are proprietors of 6 annas each and lessees of another 2 annas each were brought about by the following circumstances. In an action of 1888 a compromise was entered into between the parties under which the share of Raja Leelanand Sinha, father of the plaintiff and the defendant first party was defined as 9 annas and of Raja Padmanand Sinha Bahadur father-in-law of the defendant second party as 7 annas. Another action was compromised in 1903 in which Padmanand Sinha's share was defined as 3 annas and his sons as the same. Under these compromises it was agreed to continue the joint collection of the shares. In 1904 a further agreement was reached the important items of which were joint management, and a lease of the 7 annas interest to Leelanand Sinha. During this lease Padmanand Sinha sold his 3frac12; annas share to his son under an indenture of 26 September 1905. The son declared himself a disqualified proprietor and the 7 annas was placed under the management of the Court of Wards. The son then died and the widow who is defendant second party succeeded. Her estate of 7 annas was managed by the Court of Wards. The Court of Wards granted a fresh lease on expiry of the earlier one of the 7 annas to the father of the plaintiff and defendant first party, and during this lease of 1916 the father of the plaintiff and defendant first party died. The sons came into the share of the father and then separated in estate being the proprietors of 4 annas each. By the indenture of sale by which the defendant second party sold 3 annas interest to the plaintiff and the defendant first party their respective shares are 6 annas, 6 annas and 4 annas. During all this time by agreement there was joint management of the 16 annas interest.