Skip to content


Lallah Ramesshur Doyal Singh Vs. Lallah Bissen Doyal and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1876)ILR1Cal407
AppellantLallah Ramesshur Doyal Singh
RespondentLallah Bissen Doyal and anr.
Cases ReferredOdoit Roy v. Radha Pandey
Excerpt:
damages, suit for - joint undivided proprietors--revenue sale--act xi of 1859. - .....pergunnah or pergunnahs in which the tenure is situated;(2)the nature of the tenure;(3)the name or names of the village or villages whereof the land is composed, or wherein it is situated;(4)the area of the land comprised in the tenure, with its boundaries in complete detail;(5)the amount of rent payable annually for the tenure, and whether the rent is fixed for a term of years or in perpetuity, and the duties, if any, required to be performed on account of it;(6)the date of the deed constituting the tenure, or the date when the tenure was created:(7)the name of the proprietor who created the tenure;(8)the name of the original holder of the tenure;(9)the name of the present possessor, and if he be not the original holder, the made in which he succeeded to the tenure, whether by.....
Judgment:

Kemp, J.

1. In the case alluded to of Odoit Roy v. Radha Pandey 7 W.R. 72 Norman and Seton Karr, JJ. held that a suit would not lie between joint owners of undivided estates for damages sustained by the whole estate in consequence of the default of one or more of the co-proprietors in paying their shares of the Government revenue. As already observed, this case followed a decision of the Sudder Court of 1857 in the case of Gungapersaud Sahee v. Madhopersaud Sahee 13 S.D.A. 1244. We think that the rule laid down in those decisions is a proper one; and further we find that, under the provisions of Act XI of 1859, Section 40,[1] the plaintiff could have protected his interests by having his mokurrari right registered. He, also under the said Act, could have paid in the Government revenue due on account of the shares of his co-proprietors in the mokurrari, and thus saved the estate from sale. We find, on turning to the kyefeut of the collectorate amlah, which was called for by the Collector at the time when Bissen Doyal Singh, the defendant No. 1, petitioned to be allowed to save the property from sale by paying the revenue due on the 28th March 1872, that the balance then due was a very small one, under Rs. 100. There was, therefore, no difficulty whatever in the plaintiff avoiding the sale by paying the sum then due on account of Government revenue. Following, therefore, the ruling in Odoit Roy v. Radha Pandey 7 W.R. 72 and that of the Sudder Dewany Adawlut of 1857 alluded to above, we dismiss the plaintiff's suit.

2. Then there is a further question for consideration, namely, whether the defendants are not entitled to their costs in this suit. A cross-appeal has been made to this Court on that point, and we think that the defendants ought to get their separate costs in this litigation.

3. We dismiss the appeal of the plaintiff with costs, and modify the decree of the Court below to this extent that we decree costs to each of the two defendants in this case.

[1] [Section 40: The holder of any taluqdari or other similar tenure, such as is described in Section 38 of this Act, desirous of registering it, shall apply by petition to the Collector of the district to which the estate belongs.

The application shall state which description of registry is desired, and shall contain the following particulars so far as the same ar eascertainable:

(1)The pergunnah or pergunnahs in which the tenure is situated;

(2)The nature of the tenure;

(3)The name or names of the village or villages whereof the land is composed, or wherein it is situated;

(4)The area of the land comprised in the tenure, with its boundaries in complete detail;

(5)The amount of rent payable annually for the tenure, and whether the rent is fixed for a term of years or in perpetuity, and the duties, if any, required to be performed on account of it;

(6)The date of the deed constituting the tenure, or the date when the tenure was created:

(7)The name of the proprietor who created the tenure;

(8)The name of the original holder of the tenure;

(9)The name of the present possessor, and if he be not the original holder, the made in which he succeeded to the tenure, whether by inheritance gift, purchase, or otherwise, and whether he holds jointly or solely.

Holders of such farms as are described in the said section may apply in like manner for registry of the same. The application shall contain such of the foregoing particulars as are applicable to farms.]


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //