DHRUBESHWAR LAL SINGH DEO Vs. KANTU LAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the defendants from a decision of the District Judge of Manbhum confirming a decision of the Subordinate Judge decreeing the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff sued for partition basing his title on a purchase from Mahananda Chakravarty, who was himself the purchaser of the one-third share of one Sarobar in execution of a decree obtained by the Rajah of Pachet, the proprietor of the land in dispute, in 1902. The defendants claim that the whole of the estate, namely Ranipukur lot, which includes the property in dispute, was settled with them by the Raja in 1879. It is necessary to refer to a previous litigation respecting this land in order to decide the rights of the parties. Ranipukur lot was the property of the Raja of Panchot. Three brothers Chhatradhari, Gadadhar and Sarobar were the holders of a tenure including all the mauzas in Ranipukur lot.

(2.) The Raja instituted a suit for rent of the tenure against Chhatradhari in 1870 and obtained a decree. Another suit was instituted against the same person in 1874 and resulted in a decree. This was followed by a suit against all the three brothers which resulted in a third decree. In execution of these decrees, the tenure was put up to sale in 1878 and purchased by the decree-holder. In the following year, the decree-holder made a settlement with the father of the defendants. Thereafter three suits were instituted by two of the judgment-debtors and a son of the third to set aside the sale. The suit instituted by the son of Chhatradhari abated on account of the death of the plaintiff.The two suits instituted by Gadadhar and Sarobar failed in the first Court. In both these suits the plaintiff Raja appealed. The appeals were heard together and were disposed of by one judgment.

(3.) They resulted in the decision of the trial Court being reversed and two decrees being prepared in favour of the defendants Gadadhar and Sarobar. In one of these suits, namely in the suit that had been instituted by Gadadhar, the father of the defendants appealed to His Majesty in Council impleading Sarobar as a pro forma respondent. Gadadhar died during the pendency of the appeal and Sarobar was then made his legal representative. The result of the appeal to the Privy Council was that the decision of the High Court in the suit instituted by Gadadhar was reversed.