BHOLA NATH BOSE Vs. MTNAGENDRA BALA CHAUDHURANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the plaintiff sued for a declaration of her title and recovery of khas possession with mesne profits of two plots of land in area some nine bighas. Her case was that these two plots of land originally formed two chakran holdings. These chakran holdings were resumed in the year 1905 and on resumption were settled with one Badal Roy. It may be here noted that the plaintiff herself purchased the mehal in 1908. Badal Roy was unable to get possession with the result that the plaintiff brought two suit's with regard to these plots of land Nos. 645 and 646 of 1911 and obtained in these two suits two ex-parte decrees. According to her she then took possession and settled some of the land with defendant 1. Thereafter further trouble arose and in proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P.C., decisions were given which were against the plaintiff. Hence this suit.

(2.) The defence was that the plaintiff had no title, and that the defendants held the land under one Makhan Lal Mukerji also known as Janai Babu.

(3.) The trial Court framed a number of issues. All the issues ware found in favour of the plaintiff and the suit was decreed. On appeal to the District Court the case was remanded for the determination of some further issues which had not been determined by the trial Court. The case then again came before the District Court with the findings of the Court of the first instance. On the issues that had been sent down to that Court for determination, the District Court dismissed the appeal. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the only evidence that the lands were chakran were two decrees and the proceedings held in execution thereunder. He found that these two decrees had been obtained by fraud and that the whole of the execution proceedings were also fraudulent, processes both in the suits and in the execution proceedings having been suppressed. But he held that three years had elapsed since the defendants knew of these decrees and hence they were barred from disputing the validity of these decrees. On this finding he dismissed the appeal. The defendants have appealed to this Court.