MANKI KANK RATAN Vs. SUNDARMUNDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit which was decreed by the Court of first instance but was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. The suit related to mauza Chitramo, one of the villages appertaining to a tenure known as lot Hatingchouli which consists of a number of villages and was held by one Lal Makund Nath Sahi Deo under Basargarh estate. It is common ground that in 1894 Lal Makund sold village Chitramo to plaintiff's ancestor Panreya Manki and that some time after this transaction Panreya granted a lease of the village to the ancestors of defendants 1 to 5. The Basargarh estate had been brought under the Encumbered Estates Act some time in 1895 and in 1910 or 1911 the encumbered estate brought a suit against Lai Makund for the rent of the Hatingchouli tenure and in the execution of the decree which was passed in that suit, the tenure was sold in the year 1913 and purchased by defendant 9, Hanuman Bux.

(2.) In 1922 the plaintiff's father and defendants 1 to 5 brought a suit against Hanuman Bux and certain other persons to recover possession of Chitramo on the ground that the sale held in the execution of the decree obtained by the encumbered estate did not affect their title to that village. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff's father died and as his heirs refused to join as plaintiffs, they were impleaded as pro forma defendants and the suit proceeded as between the remaining plaintiffs (that is to say, defendants 1 to 5) and Hanuman Bux and the other defendants. On 30 July 1923 the trial Court granted a decree in favour of the plaintiffs, the operative portion of which ran as follows: Let it be declared that the plaintiffs and defendant 9 have their rights as rent receivers under defendants 7, 8, 10 and 11 in village "Chitramo" and that the auction-purchase of defendant 1 is illegal and invalid against the plaintiff's title. Let the plaintiffs recover possession of the disputed village through defendants 7, 8, 10 and 11 only. The contesting defendant 1 alone shall pay the costs of this suit.

(3.) It may be stated here that defendants 7, 8, 10 and 11 in that suit included the present plaintiff and other members of his family and defendant 1 was Hanuman Bux who is defendant 9 in the present suit. The passages which have been underlined (here italicized) have to be stressed in view of the plea of limitation which has been raised on behalf of the defendants and with which I shall presently deal. Now, Hanuman Bux being dissatisfied with the decree of the trial Court presented an appeal before the Judicial Commissioner of Chota Nagpur and in June 1925, there was a compromise between defendants 1 to 5 of the present suit and Hanuman Bux by which the former acknowledged the validity of the sale held at the instance of the encumbered estate and agreed to pay a certain annual rent to Hanuman Bux. The present plaintiff however was not a party to the compromise. On 14 January 1929, the present suit was brought by the present plaintiff in which he challenged the title of Hanuman Bux under the sale of 1913, repudiated the validity of the compromise and prayed for recovery of possession of village Chitramo.