PARAMANANDA DAS GOSWAMI Vs. KRIPASINDHU ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against two decrees, dated the 4th June, 1913, of the High Court at Calcutta, which modified a decree, dated the 22nd March, 1909, of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cuttack.

(2.) THE suit in which this appeal has arisen was brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cuttack by the appellants on the 5th October, 1907.

(3.) IT was alleged in the plaint that the first defendant held the lands from which it was sought to eject him by virtue of his office as a Sarbarakar in the service of the plaintiffs and their co-sharers, who are Mathdharis, to whom or their predecessors the Government had granted in 1861 five mouzahs of Garh Atiri in Khurdah revenue-free, in lieu of an annual allowance of salt theretofore made by the Government to the Mathdharis. The five mouzahs were Bande, Koranga, Sardhapore, Atiri, and Chutipalang. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that it was the duty of the first defendant as Sarbarakar to collect the rents due from occupiers of lands of the plaintiffs, to account for moneys received by him as the Mathdharis' Sarbarakar and for disbursements, and that he was liable to dismissal from his office for misconduct. It was also alleged by the plaintiffs that the first defendant, in right of his office of Sarbarakar, was entitled to apply to his own use 20 per cent of the rents received by him from the lands of the Mathdharis, and to hold certain revenue free grants of land known as Sarbarakari jagirs, some of the Sarbarakari jagir lands, which were held by the first defendant as a Sarbarakar of the Mathdharis, were in mouzah Bande, which had been granted to the Mathdharis by the Government in 1861, other Sarbara kari jagir lands which were held by him as Sarbarakar of the Mathdharis were in mouzah Panasabasta, which had not been granted to the Mathdharis. It was alleged in the plaint that after the settlement which was completed in 1899 the first defendant, having been called upon by the Mathdharis to execute an ekrarnama as Sarbarakar and directed by the Mathdharis to collect as their Sarbarakar the newly assessed rents of their lands, and to pay the same to the Mathdharis, did not execute the customary ekrarnama, and assuming to be himself the proprietor of the Mathdhari lands collected rents from the tenants of those lands and misappropriated the same and that in consequence of such misconduct the Mathdharis dismissed him from his office of Sarbarakar. It was also alleged in the plaint that the first defendant had dispossessed the plaintiffs.