GOPALJI JHA Vs. GAJENDRA NARAYAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against an interim injunction restraining defendants 1 party from proceeding with the Collectorate batwara of mahal Parhat Keotgawan, tauzi No. 10066 in the District of Darbhanga. Plaintiff's share in the estate is 8 annas, defendants 1 party owning 4 annas and defendants 2nd party the remaining 4 annas. In October 1922, the plaintiffs applied to the Collector of Darbhanga for a partition of the estate. The application was opposed by defendants 1 party on the ground of a previous partition, but the objection was disallowed and a proceeding under Section 29, Bengal Estates Partition Act, 1897, recorded in July 1923.

(2.) There were prolonged disputes at the raibandi stage, and when the matter came up before Mr. Heycock, Member of the Board of Revenue, in November 1929, there was a compromise which however led to further disputes at the next stage, so much so that in the pattibandi appeal M. Dain, then Member of the Board of Revenue, passed an order that the parties were to remain in possession of 5 out of the 7 mauzas that constituted the estate exactly as they had been doing under certain private arrangements since 1889 and that the other 2 mauzas, which only represent a little over 1 per cent of the estate, were to be divided among the parties according to their shares. This was in December 1933, and after unsuccessfully endeavouring to obtain a review of the order of the Board the plaintiffs sued in September 1934, for various declarations and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from taking any step in the batwara case for allotment of pattis in accordance with the order of the Board of Revenue. They also applied for an interim injunction of the ground that a pattibandi on the basis of the order in question would cause them great and irreparable loss and wrongful damage. The learned Subordinate Judge allowed the injunction. Defendants 1st party have accordingly preferred this appeal and also an application in revision in case it is found that no appeal lies. As it has not however been contended before us on behalf of the plaintiffs that no appeal lies it is unnecessary to refer further to the revisional application.

(3.) There was and is no dispute between the shares of the parties. The disputed raibandi, as Mr. Dain calls it in para. 4 of his order, comes to a little over Rupees 30,000 if Itahar, the largest mauza of the estate, around which these disputes have centered, be valued at Rs. 9,700, as was originally done by the partition Deputy Collector. This valuation of Itahar was reduced by the Collector on appeal; on a further appeal there was a remand by the Commissioner, and another partition Deputy Collector reduced the valuation to Rs. 5,056, which was raised by another Collector to Rs. 8,053 but again reduced by another Commissioner to Rs. 7,814 before the matter went up to Mr. Hey-cock in 1929 and was compromised. In the view that Mr. Dain took, it became unnecessary for the final revenue authority to fix the valuation of the mauza, but I have referred to the matter because the plaint endeavours to make out a case of losts to the plaintiffs on the ground that the order of the Board would give them assets amounting to Rs. 14,407 out of a total valuation of over Rs. 30,000. Reduce the valuation of Itahar to the figure (Rs. 7,814), adopted by the highest revenue authority that has yet looked into the matter, and the valuation of the entire estate amounts to less than double the assets that would come to the plaintiffs (and Itahar is not among them) under the order of the Board for their 8 annas share in the estate.