Skip to content


Digambar Nanda Vs. the Secretary of State for India - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in17Ind.Cas.917
AppellantDigambar Nanda
RespondentThe Secretary of State for India
Cases ReferredMahomed Badsha v. Nicol
Excerpt:
record of rights - suit for declaration that plaintiff not tenure-holder but raiyat--party--court adding persons recorded an raiyats, as defendants--plaintiff not prejudiced--persons recorded as raiyats, whether necessary parties. - .....other reliefs, for a declaration that he is not a tenure-holder, as he had been described in the record of rights but a raiyat.2. the munsif, during the hearing of the case, thought it desirable in the interests of justice and to prevent, a multiplicity of suits, to add, as defendants, the persons who had been recorded in the record of rights as raiyats of the land under the plaintiff as tenure-holder.3. the plaintiff's case is that these persons are mere tenants-at-will, paying rent in kind.4. the plaintiff has obtained from this court a rule on the opposite party to show cause why this order should not be set aside. the order was passed on the 5th may 1911, apparently suo motu by the munsif, although the case had been fixed for the 20th may 1911.5. this, no doubt, was an.....
Judgment:

1. The plaintiff in this suit has sought, among other reliefs, for a declaration that he is not a tenure-holder, as he had been described in the Record of Rights but a raiyat.

2. The Munsif, during the hearing of the case, thought it desirable in the interests of justice and to prevent, a multiplicity of suits, to add, as defendants, the persons who had been recorded in the Record of Rights as raiyats of the land under the plaintiff as tenure-holder.

3. The plaintiff's case is that these persons are mere tenants-at-will, paying rent in kind.

4. The plaintiff has obtained from this Court a Rule on the opposite party to show cause why this order should not be set aside. The order was passed on the 5th May 1911, apparently suo motu by the Munsif, although the case had been fixed for the 20th May 1911.

5. This, no doubt, was an irregularity, but as the matter has now been fully argued, we do not think that the plaintiff has been prejudiced in any way.

6. The only question that remained is whether these tenants under the plaintiff are proper parties to the present suit.

7. We feel ourselves entirely unable, in revision, to set aside the order of the Munsif in this respect.

8. The plaintiff's cause of action is the publication of this Record of Rights. His complaint is that he has been recorded as a tenure-holder, instead of raiyat.

9. By the law the status of the tenants under him is made to depend on his status. So that these tenants are as vitally interested in the Record of Rights as he is himself if indeed they are not more so. If this suit succeeds and the plaintiff obtains a declaration that he is a raiyat that declaration may work very grave injury to these tenants under him.

10. The special provisions of the law which cause the position of these tenants to depend on the position of the plaintiff makes the case entirely distinguishable from the case cited, namely, that of Mahomed Badsha v. Nicol, Fleming & Co. 4 C. 355 : 2 C.L.R. 330 which was a commercial case.

11. We think that under the circumstances of the case it is most desirable, as the Munsif says, in the interest of justice and to prevent a multiplicity of suits, that these tenants, who are so vitally interested in the result of the suits, should be allowed to take part in it. The Rule will accordingly be discharged with costs. We assess the hearing fee at two gold mohurs.


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