RUGHOOBUR DYAL SAHOO Vs. MAHARAJAH KISHEN PERTAB SAHEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of this case are very clearly stated in the judgment of their Lordships upon the remand in the year 1873. It is clear that in 1837 a settlement of the lands in dispute was made with the predecessors of the Plaintiffs. That settlement was made at a revenue of Rs. 84,200 3a. In 1847 the settlement was renewed, and the predecessors of the Plaintiffs continued in possession of the lands from 1837, when the settlement was first made with them, down to the expiration of the settlement of 1847. Prior to the renewal of that settlement in 1857 the River Gunduck, which was to the south of the Plaintiffs' zemindary and to the north of the Defendant's, had so completely changed its course that the lands in dispute, which were formerly on the north side of the river, were capable of being identified on the south side of it.

(2.) A question arose as to the renewal of the settlement of 1847, and the lands being then on the south side of the river, which was the acknowledged boundary between the districts of Sarun and Tirhoot, were then in the district of Sarun. Mr. Lautour, who was the Collector of Tirhoot, and who had formerly settled the lands when they were on the north side of the river, and were then in his district, had some doubt whether he had jurisdiction to re-settle them. The question was referred to the Commissioner, Mr. Tayler, who decided in favour of Mr. Lautour's jurisdiction, and directed him to renew the settlement with the owners of the Plaintiffs' zemindary, Sohagpoor, upon which an appeal was presented to the Board of Revenue, and they ordered the settlement not to be made with the owners of the Plaintiffs' zemindary but with the owners of that of the Defendant on the southern side of the river. It is in consequence of that order that differences have arisen between the parties as to whether the Plaintiffs were entitled to a renewal of the settlement in 1857 or whether the Defendant was entitled to it.

(3.) THE Principal Sudder Ameen tried the case, and he dismissed the Plaintiffs' suit upon some technical objections, and also upon the ground that the decision of the Board of Revenue that the settlement should be made with the Plaintiff was final and conclusive. Upon appeal to the High Court they reversed that decision, and remanded the case to the Principal Sudder Ameen for re-trial.