BISSESSARNATH Vs. LOKNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE parties to this appeal are members of a joint Hindu family, and the dispute relates to the enjoyment of the family property. The plaintiff below, now respondent, is the head of the family and the proprietor of the talukh Tarenga. The defendant, now appellant, belongs to a junior line. He claims enjoyment of 11 villages forming part of the talukh. His right to the net profits of the villages has been maintained by the decree appealed from, but subject to payments of Government jama, which he contends that the talukhdar ought to bear.

(2.) IT is not shown at what date this portion of the Central Provinces became British territory, nor when regular Courts were established with jurisdiction for revenue or for civil purposes. Counsel have informed their Lordships that the earliest laws they have found in these matters are those passed for civil suits in 1865, and for revenue in 1881; whereas some of the judicial proceedings under consideration are prior to 1865. But it is clear that the officers placed in charge of the country taken over from the Mahrattas exercised authority to settle disputes in some legal modes, which throughout this litigation have, doubtless rightly, been taken as valid and as governing the rights of the disputants. The controversy has been and is as to the construction and effect of the official proceedings.

(3.) LOKNATH sought execution of his decree in the Court of an Assistant Commissioner, Bakhtawar Singh, and in the course of those proceedings the parties effected a compromise through the medium of arbitrators. That compromise was induced to writing, signed by the parties and by the arbitrators on the 29th October 1864, and on the same day embodied in a decree of the Court. There are three versions of it in the record. One is called a copy; of what is not explained. One is an official translation. One is contained in recitals to the decree. Their Lordships agree with the first Court (the Civil Judge of Bilaspur) in holding that the real foundation of the defendant's rights is this decree. It adds nothing to its recital of the award beyond stating the approval of the Judge and ordering "That the award filed by the arbitrators and consented to by the parties be filed with the record. The parties should act up to it. "