SATIS CHANDRA BANDOPADHYA Vs. NATABAR DOME

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case comes up again on appeal to this Court from the final decision of the learned District Judge of Bankura, dated the 2nd September 1916, reversing the decision of the Munsif of Bishnupur. The plaintiff brought the suit for a declaration of his dakbardari simandari chakran right to the lands mentioned in the schedule to the plaint and also for recovery of - possession thereof. The case was fought in this Court on more than one occasion. The plaint was filed in March 1909 and we are now in 1918, and it is unfortunate that litigation of this nature has dragged on for so many years and has not been finally decided yet. The case is this: The Government was persuaded in the year 1894 to appoint a Commissioner under the Chowkidari Chakran Act for the purpose of resuming the land in question on the statement that they were chowkidari chakran lands. These lands were resumed and transferred to the Maharaja of Burdwan, who transferred them to the putnidars, who settled them with the defendants Nos. 4 and 5. The plaintiff brought the suit on the ground that the lands were not chowkidart chakran lands at all but that they were held by him and his ancestors on the footing that they should perform other duties in lieu of enjoying these lands. The case has been dealt with in this way. The learned District Judge has found that the duties which the plaintiff and his predecessors were bound to perform with reference to these lands were not the duties mentioned in Schedule I of the Chowkidari Chakran Act and that, therefore, the Government had no right to resume these lands under the provisions of the said Act. Apparently, that seems to be the view of the Government also. The learned Judge has also found that grave fraud was practised both on the Government officials and on the plaintiff with reference to the resumption of these lands and that, therefore, the lands cannot be taken to be resumed at all.

(2.) The second question raised by the appellants before us is this: It is said, that the plaintiff according to his own case was not a service tenure-holder at all but was a mere occupant of the lands, being permitted to occupy them in lieu of wages for performing the duties that were assigned to him. It may be that the first paragraph of the plaint as translated is not a vary accurate translation. But from the prayer in the plaint it is quite clear that the plaintiff was not asking for a declaration of any such right but was asking for a declaration of his dakbardari simandari chakran right which was the right of a service tenure-holder, and the purpose for which he brought the suit was not to have his temporary right from which he might be dismissed any day declared. The real case is that the plaintiff wants to have a declaration of his chakran right to these lands.

(3.) Then it is said, on the decision of the case of Lalu Dome v. Bejoy Chand 33 Ind. Cas. 553 : 43 C. 227 : 20 C.W.N. 404, that the provisions of the Chowkidari Chakran Act apply to simandars of the Thana in which the property is situated. Bat that case did not and could not decide that each and every case that came before the Court in which there might be definite and conclusive evidence to satisfy the Court as to what was the nature of the services required from the service tenure-holder was to be governed by Section 1 of the Chowkidari Chakran Act. It stated the general rule as to the simandari. It did not say that the duties of the simandars who had been performing these duties from generation to generation fall within the terms of Section 1 of that Act.