Decided on August 30,1950

Lakshmidhar Mohanty And Ors. Appellant
Bhagat Charan Mohanty Respondents


B.K. Ray, J. - (1.) THE Petitioners in this case are Defendants 1, 2 and 3 in a suit for declaration that the purchase of a revenue paying Estate in respect of which both the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 were registered as co -proprietors, by the latter in the benami name of Defendant No. 3 was, under the circumstances of the case, to ensure to the benefit jointly of the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The Plaintiff therefore prayed that after this declaration the Court may pass such other appropriate order of reconveyance or the like in order to give appropriate relief to the Plaintiff.
(2.) THE relationship between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 was straddled. The latter was claiming to have been adopted by the Plaintiff's deceased younger brother and by virtue of that status, as an adopted son, was claiming 8 annas interest in the entire family property including the revenue paying estate in dispute of which the Plaintiff and the deceased brother of his were owners as coparceners at the time of the latter's death. Over this question as to the factum as well as the validity of adoption, the parties have been litigating for sometime past, and the litigation in fact is not yet over. It has to be stated, however, that on the point of adoption the Defendant No. 2 has succeeded in two Courts and the special appeal is pending in the High Court. By virtue of the concurrent findings of the two Courts, Defendant No. 2 has notwithstanding the opposition of the Plaintiff got himself recorded as co -proprietor in respect of this revenue paying estate as well as other such estates in the register of the Collector.
(3.) IT is clear that as a co -proprietor, on the basis of that registration, he was liable to pay the revenue in order to save the estate from being sold by the Collector under the Revenue Sale Law of the Province. Evidence was in abundance in the case to the effect that Defendant No. 2 was not only registered as a proprietor but was successfully exploiting the situation for collecting rents from the tenants. It may be stated here, that according to the law of Agricultural Tenancy as well as the law relating to the registration of revenue paying and revenue free estates, nobody is entitled to claim to recover rents from the tenants either as a proprietor or as a tenure holder unless he is recorded as such in the records of the Collector or of the proprietor of the tenure as the case may be. Under the circumstances it was not dispute before us that as between the Collector and himself the Defendant No. 2 was under the liability to pay the revenue. Besides, under the special procedure provided in the Revenue Sale Law with regard to bringing the property to sale in the event of revenue falling due and becoming arrears, Defendant No. 2 was entitled to being served with notices and that at various stages of the proceeding.;

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