SECRATORY OF STATE Vs. HARINATH BIKAJI BAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FINDLAY , J.C. 1. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent, who is the malguzar of mouza Ridhora (Nagpur), against the Secretary of State for India for a declaration that occupancy fields Nos. 26 and 12 are not liable to attachment and sale for recovery of the bakavi loan advanced to Ramachandra and Bhadu, the reputed tenants of these two respective fields. The plaintiff's case was that Ramachandra had been ejected from field No. 26 by a decree of the civil Court in 1917. In the case of Bhadu his allegation was .that he had obtained possession of the field No. 12 in 1924 in execution of two civil Court decrees of the years 1913 and 1917 respectively. The takavi loan was given to Ramachandra and Bhadu jointly on 3rd March 1921, and the plaintiff's case was that Bhadu had previously been adjudged an insolvent, that Rakhadu (Bhadu's brother) was also a joint tenant of the field, that Bhadu had made no improvement in the field and that both fields were now khudkasht of the plaintiff and not liable, as stated, for recovery of the takavi loan.

(2.) ON the issues which arose on these and connected pleadings, the Judge of the first Court came to the following findings:

(3.) THE Secretary of State has come up here on second appeal against the decree of the lower appellate Court; but, as is clear from the detailed grounds of appeal, we are no longer concerned with Ramachandra's field No. 26, and the only question at issue is as regards the liability of field No. 12, that of Bhadu, be attachment and sale. I may at once clear a principal point. Objection was taken by the pleader for the respondent to the finding of both the lower Courts on the question of the alleged compromise, which, according to the respondent, would imply that the Secretary of State had surrendered any right he might have had to sell either field, because of a compromise arrived at by the Tahsildar, to the respondent. There is not the slightest ground for disturbing in this connexion in second appeal what is undoubtedly a pure finding of fact. The Tahsildar may have been ready to have come to such arrangement, as that alleged, with respondent, but it is perfectly clear that the proposed arrangement was not accepted by the higher revenue authorities. It is clear, moreover, as pointed out by the Additional District Judge, that the plaintiff himself was aware of this fact, and the alleged compromise has clearly not been established.