Skip to content


Gosai Chandra Ray Vs. Churku Singh Babu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1935Cal402
AppellantGosai Chandra Ray
RespondentChurku Singh Babu and ors.
Cases ReferredHukum Chand v. Ran Bahadur Singh
Excerpt:
- .....of defendants 2 and 3 had been declared to be an encumbered estated under the provisions of the chota nagpur encumbered estates act (6 of 1876). in order to obtain possession of the land which was settled with him in 1926 and a declaration of his title thereto the plaintiff instituted the suit out of which the present appeal arises.3. the case for defendant 1 gosai chandra roy, in the lower court was to the effect that he was in possession of the land in suit and that defendants 2 and 3 had no power to grant settlement of this land to churku singh. he also raised another defence to the effect that the land in suit appertained to certain jamai land belonging to jugal roy which he had bought from the latter. but with regard to the latter defence it is admitted that the findings of fact.....
Judgment:

Edgley, J.

1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of Mr. Sarat Chandra De, Additional Subordinate Judge of Asansol, dated 22nd August 1931, in which he dismissed an appeal from the decision of Babu Khagesh Chandra Mitter, Munsif of Asansol dated 29th July 1930.

2. In the case with reference to which this appeal arises it appears that one Jugal Roy held certain land under defendants 2 and 3. The land in question was held under a service tenure. He also appears to have held certain other lands under the same proprietors under another tenure. When Jugal died the Chakran land was resumed by defendants 2 and 3, and in 1926 defendants 2 and 3 settled this resumed land with the plaintiff Churku Singh. It is admitted that, before this land was settled with Churku Singh, the estate of defendants 2 and 3 had been declared to be an Encumbered Estated under the provisions of the Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act (6 of 1876). In order to obtain possession of the land which was settled with him in 1926 and a declaration of his title thereto the plaintiff instituted the suit out of which the present appeal arises.

3. The case for defendant 1 Gosai Chandra Roy, in the lower Court was to the effect that he was in possession of the land in suit and that defendants 2 and 3 had no power to grant settlement of this land to Churku Singh. He also raised another defence to the effect that the land in suit appertained to certain jamai land belonging to Jugal Roy which he had bought from the latter. But with regard to the latter defence it is admitted that the findings of fact in the judgment of the lower Courts are conclusive. The Subordinate Judge in dismissing the appeal noted that, as the land in suit is not situated within Chota Nagpur, he considered that defendants 2 and 3 had ample power to grant settlement thereof to the plaintiff, and he based his finding on this point on the decision of this Court in the case of Bhicha Ram Sahu v. Bishumbhur Nath Sahi (1912) 17 IC 957. The only point which has been urged by Mr. Mitter in support of the appellant is that the land which is the subject-matter of the suit out of which this appeal arises is subject to the provisions of the Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act, even although it is admittedly situated in the Asansol Sub-Division and, in particular, he refers to Section 2 of the Act by which it is provided that

'the Commissioner may, with the previous consent of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal by order published in the Calcutta Gazette, ap point an officer (hereinafter called the manager) and vest in him the management of the whole or any portion of the immovable property of or to which the said holder is then possessed or entitled in his own right.'

4. It is contended that the language of this section of the Act implies that an order under Section 2 may be made in respect of any portion of the estate of a Chota Nagpur Zemindar, even although some portion of the property may be situated beyond, the limits of Chota Nagpur. With regard to this contention it seems to be clear however from the preamble that the provisions of the Act are strictly confined to land which is actually situated in Chota Nagpur, and these provisions of the Act must therefore be read subject to the restrictions laid down in the preamble This view was adopted by Sir Asutosh Mookerjee in the case of Bhicha Ram Sahu v. Bishumbhur Nath Sahi (1912) 17 IC 957 at p. 533 of the report where the Hon'ble Judge states 'to my mind, it is a sound and reasonable interpretation of the statute to hold that it has no application to land outside Chota Nagpur.' In support of his contention Mr. Mitter places some reliance upon the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Hukum Chand v. Ran Bahadur Singh 1924 PC 156. In this case their Lordships held that the manager of an estate in respect of which an order has been passed under the Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act of 1876, is in the eye of the law fully and completely vested in the management of the Estate, and the vesting in him continues during the tenure of his office. It is admitted however that the subject-matter of the case with reference to which this appeal arose was the Paresnath Hill which is admittedly situated in Chota Nagpur, and the decision in question can be of no avail to the appellant. Having regard to the considerations mentioned above I think the decision of the lower appellate Court was quite correct and it is therefore affirmed. The appeal must therefore be dismissed with costs.


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