Decided on November 18,1935



Thankerton, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated July 29, 1932, which reversed a decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Hazaribagh dated March 31, 1928, and decreed the plaintiff-respondent's suit with costs.
(2.) THE following pedigree shows the relationship of the parties : Senior wife = Thakur Jadu Charan Singh, = Junior wife | died 21st Feb. 1924 || || | -----------------------|| | |Babu Ramdhan Jibdan Charan Bindeshwari Charan SihghCharan Singh Singh.(Defendant-Appellant).(eldest son),died 30th Jan. 1920 |Thakur BageshwariCharan Singh(Plaintiff-Respondent). Thakur Jadu Charan Singh was the owner of an impartible estate in the District of Hazaribagh. On his death intestate in 1924 the respondent succeeded to the estate, his father having died in 1920. The management of the estate was vested in a manager appointed under Section 2 of the Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act (VI of 1876) from 1894 until May 15, 1909, when it was released and made over again to Jadu Charan, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The estate was again vested in a manager under the Act on July 24, 1921, and it is still under management.
(3.) ON November 17, 1909, Jadu Charan executed a maintenance grant in favour of the appellant, transferring to him villages and lands yielding an annual income of Rs. 1,300. Doubt being entertained as to whether, in view of the provisions of Section 12A of the Act, the sanction of the Commissioner to the grant should have been obtained, the appellant, on March 4, 1916, sought the sanction of the Commissioner, but this was refused by an order dated April 26, 1916. Section 12A provides as follows : 12a.-(1) When the possession and enjoyment of property is restored, under the circumstances mentioned in the first or the third clause of section 12, to the person who was the holder of such property when the application under Section 2 was made, such person shall not be competent, without the previous sanction of the Commissioner (a) to alienate such property, or any part thereof, in any way, or (b) to create any charge thereon extending beyond his lifetime. (2) If the Commissioner refuses to sanction any such alienation or charge, an appeal shall lie to the Board of Revenue, whose decision shall be final. (3) Every alienation and charge made or attempted in contravention of sub-section (1) shall be void. The present appellant, having attained majority on September 4, 1917, instituted suit No. 117 of 1917 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Hazaribagh against Jadu Charan and his brothers Ramdhan and Jibdhan, claiming a maintenance grant of the yearly value of Rs. 4,000-he being already in possession under the grant of 1909 of properties yielding an income of Rs. 1,200 in cash and Rs. 100 in kind-and maintaining that the sanction of the Commissioner was not necessary. All three defendants filed written statements, the present respondent's father, in particular, contesting the suit. On November 12, 1919, the Subordinate Judge decreed the suit and ordered and decreed that : it be declared that the plaintiff is entitled to get as maintenance grant from the defendant No. 1 properties yielding an income of Rs. 3,500 in cash and Rs. 500 in kind annually and it be further declared that the grant made to the plaintiff by his father on Kartik Sudi 5, 1966 S. is legally valid and after leaving out the khorposh properties so obtained by the plaintiff, he do get additional properties in maintenance from the defendant No. 1 yielding an annual income of Rs. 2,300 in cash and Rs. 400 in kind.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.