NRISINGHA CHARAN NANDY Vs. RAJNITI PARSAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule was issued calling upon the plaintiffs to show cause why the order of the Subordinate Judge of Gaya, dated 18 November 1932, by which he retained jurisdiction of the plaintiffs mortgage suit, should not be set aside. The action was transferred to the Subordinate Judge of Gaya, by the Settlement Officer of the Santal Parganas on 24 March 1931, and upwards of two years the matter has been pending before that Court. There were certain interlocutory orders made by the Subordinate Judge in the case including an order for the appointment of a receiver, against which there was an appeal by the defendants who are the applicants before this Court.

(2.) The question of jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge which is now the question before us was not then taken and was not taken until the end of 1932. These facts are of importance having regard to the view which I take as to the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge to try the suit (apart from the other question whether the Settlement Officer had jurisdiction to transfer it to the Subordinate Judge of Gaya). As our revisional powers are discretionary I would discharge this rule on that ground alone as in my judgment the Subordinate Judge having jurisdiction to try the suit, apart from the question of the manner in which he has obtained seisin of it, this Court should not exercise its discretion in favour of the applicants. Two questions arise however as I have already indicated, the one being whether the Settlement Officer was entitled by law to transfer the suit to a Court of the Subordinate Judge situate outside the Santal Parganas, the other being whether the Subordinate Judge has jurisdiction to try it; the second question being a branch of the main question.

(3.) Reference must be made in dealing with this question to the legislation concerning the jurisdiction of the Courts in the Santal Parganas. The important statutes relating to the Santal Parganas have been set out elaborately in the judgment of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Maha Prasad Singh V/s. Ramani Mohan Singh AIR 1914 PC 140, and it is unnecessary to refer to them in detail here, excepting to state their main provisions and their Lordships decision with regard to the points which are relevant in this case. Reference will also be necessary to the case of Sourendra Mohan Sinha V/s. Hari Prasad , which case arose out of the same mortgage in the earlier case and decided one of the questions with which we have to deal in this case, namely of jurisdiction. However for the purpose of one of the arguments of the defendants it becomes necessary to mention some of the earlier legislation relating to the authority of the Governor-General in Council to legislate for the Santal Parganas.