BARAIK RAM GOVIND SINGH Vs. CHOWRA URAON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These six appeals by the defendants have been referred to us by a single Judge. The unfortunate history of this litigation begins from the year 1918 when rent Suits Nos. 693 and 723 were filed under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act by the landlords of village Kaimbo in the Ranchi District. The suits were for recovery of three years rent due in respect of four holdings of Uraon tenants of the village. The order sheets record that the suits were contested, and in the year 1919 they were decreed for very trifling amounts, ranging from 4 annas 3 pies to 4 rupees 3 annas 6 pies, found to be due after crediting various part payments. Two years later, in the year 1921, executions were taken out, but were allowed to be dismissed for default.

(2.) As a result of further ex parte execution proceedings the holdings were sold in June 1922, and purchased by the landlords. Meanwhile in the year 1920 rent Suit No. 330 had been filed in respect of two further holdings of Uraons in the village. Ex parte decrees were obtained in the year 1924, and the holdings were purchased in execution by the landlords in the same year. In all six cases the landlords took out delivery of possession through the Court in the year 1925. Thus in four of these cases, as appears from the facts stated above, the landlord waited till the sixth year before seizing through the Court the entire holdings of the tenants for insignificant decretal amounts, which in three of the cases were actually less than one rupee. Mean. while the landlords had obtained and realized other rent decrees from the tenants. I cannot but conclude that in the cirumstances there might have been good reason for the Bent Court to set aside the sales, but unfortunately applications filed by the tenants under Section 213, Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, before that Court were rejected as having been filed more than thirty days after the sales, although the tenants pleaded that they had filed them within thirty days of their knowledge of the sales.

(3.) The tenants then filed title Suits Nos. 94 to 99 of 1926 against the land, lords, the present appellants, for setting aside the decrees and the consequent sales on the ground of fraud. Title Suits Nos. 94, 95, 98 and 99 were in respect of the rent decrees of the year 1918, and title Suits Nos. 96 and 97 were in respect of those of the year 1920. The plaintiffs claimed that no rents were due, and that they were ignorant of both the decrees and the execution proceedings until a peon came to the village to deliver possession to the landlords. They asked to be restored to possession of their holdings as they had been found to be out of possession in proceedings under Section 115, Criminal P.C.