Skip to content


Ujal Singh Vs. Debya Singh Sardar and the Secretary of State for India in Council - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in13Ind.Cas.184
AppellantUjal Singh
RespondentDebya Singh Sardar and the Secretary of State for India in Council
Excerpt:
central provinces land revenue act (xviii of 1881), section 83 - suit for amendment of settlement record--party--whether government necessary party. - .....that the request for amending the settlement papers might be excluded from the prayer. in the result he obtained from the first court an order--a declaration--in the sense in which he wished and an order that the entry in the settlement record should be cancelled.2. this decision was upheld on appeal. he did not take the precaution of giving notice to government of his suit which it was his duty to do under section 83, central provinces land revenue act. the result was that government was not represented in this case until it came up to this court in second appeal. the government now applies to have the case sent back for a re-hearing and we cannot see our way not to accede to this request. it is urged before ns that the suit is not one for the cancellation or amendment of the.....
Judgment:

1. In this case the plaintiff brought a suit for a declaration that he was the maintenance grant holder of a certain mauzah in perpetuity on payment of a jama of Rs. 15 per year. His grievance was that he had been entered in the Settlement Record as a ticcadar of a village with a protected status at an annual jama of Rs. 220. In his original plaint, he specifically asked that the Settlement, papers might be amended and he might have a declaration in the sense in which he wished. In an additional plaint he prayed that the request for amending the Settlement papers might be excluded from the prayer. In the result he obtained from the first Court an order--a declaration--in the sense in which he wished and an order that the entry in the Settlement Record should be cancelled.

2. This decision was upheld on appeal. He did not take the precaution of giving notice to Government of his suit which it was his duty to do under Section 83, Central Provinces Land Revenue Act. The result was that Government was not represented in this case until it came up to this Court in second appeal. The Government now applies to have the case sent back for a re-hearing and we cannot see our way not to accede to this request. It is urged before ns that the suit is not one for the cancellation or amendment of the Settlement under Section 83 of the Central Provinces Laud Revenue Act. We cannot take this view. In the first place, it is prayed that the record be cancelled. In the second place, the relief is obtained and in the third, it is obvious that it would be unjust that the rent payable by plaintiff should be reduced from Rs. 220 to Rs. 15 leaving the zemindar defendant liable to Government as though that rent remained at the figure recorded in the Settlement Record, Rs. 220. We regret that the parties should be put to the additional expenses of a trial Which a remand will cause, but the plaintiff is responsible for this inconvenience because he did not do what it was clearly his duty to do under Section 83, the words of which are imperative.

3. The order is that this case be remanded to the Munsif of Sambalpur for a re-hearing.

4. Costs will abide the result.


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