MIDNAPUR ZEMINDARY COMPANY LTD Vs. UMA CHARAN MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are consolidated appeals from twenty decrees, dated the 1st June, 1914, of the High Court at Calcutta, which reversed decrees, dated the 30th September and the 30th November, 1910, of the District Judge of Mangham, which had affirmed decrees, dated the 21st March, 1910, of the Subordinate Judge of Purlieu. The decrees of the High Court which are the subject of these consolidated appeals dismissed the suits, which were suits for a declaration of title and for has possession by the eviction of the defendants from lands held by them severally in pergunnah Barahabhum and for such other relief s as the plaintiffs might be entitled to.

(2.) The plaintiffs case was that they were successors in title of Robert Watson & Co., who, on the 8th March, 1885, obtained a paint lease, which included the lands in question, from Rajah Brajakishore Singh, the then Zamindar. Mr. H. Matheson, in whom were then vested the rights of Robert Watson & Co., under the patni lease, on the 25th June, 1906, conveyed all his rights in the patni taluk to the plaintiffs. Under the patni tenure there was an "old under-tenure held by one Sharup Ganjan Singh, whose interest therein was purchased in 1899 by Rajah Jagabandhu Singh at a sale in execution of a decree against Sharup Ganjan Singh. Rajah Jagabandhu Singh made default in payment of rent due by him to the plaintiffs, and on the 19th August, 1908, the plaintiffs obtained a decree for Rs. 104 annas 13, and on the 7th December, 1908, the under-tenure of Rajah Jagabandhu Singh of the lands in question was, in execution of that decree of the 19th August, 1908, sold at a Court sale under Bengal Act VIII of 1865, and was purchased by the plaintiffs, who claim to have thereby acquired it free from all incumbrances within the meaning of Section 16 of that Act on the ground that such rights as the defendants or any of them had in the lands were incumbrances free from which under that section the plaintiffs acquired by that purchase the undertenure of Rajah Jagabandhu Singh.

(3.) The Case of the defendants in answer to the plaintiffs claim may be briefly summarised as follows:- 1. That the sale of the 7th December, 1908, was not held in accordance with the requirements of Sections 4 and 5 of Act VIII of 1865. 2. "That the sale held on the 7th December, 1908, was not a public sale, but that to was a fraudulent device on the part of the plaintiffs and Rajah Jagabandhu Singh to give to a private sale the appearance of a public sale." 3. That the lands which were sold did not constitute an tinder-tenure, but only part of an under-tenure.