LALITESHWAR SINGH Vs. MAHARAJA RAMESHWAR SINGH BAHADUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was one of defendants in the suit under appeal. The plaintiff-respondent sued for recovery of the sum of Rs. 50,867-l-7 1/4 alleging that he was entitled to recover the sum from the defendants as rent, cesses, dak-cess and Nimaksar, payable to him with respect to a babuana property, i.e., certain mehals in pergana Padri which were at one time included within the Durbhanga Raj Estate. Maharaja Rudra Singh Bahadur made over by a Rajgi sanad of the year 1850, the Raj to his eldest son Maharaj Kumar Maheswar Singh Bahadur, afterwards, Maharaja Maheswar Singh Bahadur and he stated in that document that he had made a babuana grant of certain mehals in pergana Padri to his son Maharaj Kumar Guneswar Singh Bahadur. The instrument, if any creating the grant, is not on the record. The Rajgi sanad, however, contains a direction that the Maharaja for the time being would be entitled to realize the Government revenue of the mehals granted to the Babus, and that the Maharaja himself would pay the Government revenue of the babuana mehals along with the revenue of the Raj estate. The babuana mehals were thus practically excluded from the Raj estate. The dependency, however, of the former to the latter was kept up in the matter of the payment of the Government demands. The babuana mehals would, also, according to custom lapse into the Raj estate on failure of male descendants of the Babus. They could not be called tenures or dependent taluks.

(2.) Maharaj Kumar Guneswar Singh Bahadur, it appears, admitted his liability to pay the Government demands to the Maharaja, i.e., revenue cesses, dak-cess and Nimaksar leviable from the babuana mehals in his possession. In a bond, dated the 19 July 1900, in favour of the present plaintiff, he admitted such liability. In fact, the bond was executed for arrears in respect of the cesses and. Nimaksar due up to the June kist of 1307 Interest also was stipulated to be payable at 6 per cent per annum on the amount covered by the bond. The appellant is one of the sons of Maharaj Kumar Guneswar Singh, and he was one of his co- parceners according to the Mithila School of Law. The appellant , however, denies his liability to pay any of the public demands with respect to the babuana mehals. He, also, denied the plaintiff's title to the Raj, but this plea has been abandoned in this Court. The learned Vakil for the appellant has also conceded before us that according to the Rajgi sanad of 1850, the appellant, along with his co-parceners, is bound to contribute towards the Government revenue, and that the claim as regards the Government revenue was maintainable.

(3.) As regards the cesses and the Nimaksar the contention raised is that the Rajgi sanad did not require Maharaj Kumar Guneswar Singh to pay the same to the Raj. But Nimaksar is, in reality, a part of the Government revenue, though it bears a different name, and the dak-cess and road and public works cesses came to be levied from estates under legislative enactments passed years after the Rajgi sanad. They are charges for which the Maharaja was liable to Government, and he did pay them, but he was not in possession of the babuana mehals, and the defendants are bound to pay them to the Maharaja to re-imburse him for his loss.