KAMAKHYA NARAIN SINGH Vs. ABHIMAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff in the suit, a minor appearing through the Court of Wards, from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated 19 November 1930, which reversed a decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Hazaribagh dated 23 June 1928, and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The suit was for a declaration that a village called Ghutibar became liable to resumption on the cessation of certain services, viz., the cessation of reciting one chapter of the holy book of Srimadbhagwat before the God Saligram from the mon April, 1920 A.D., and that thereafter the defendants had no right to remain in possession of the said village in view of the rights of the plaintiff; for a decree for khas possession of the said village; for mesne profits and for any other relief to which the plaintiff might be found entitled. Defendants 1 to 8 filed a written statement denying the discontinuance of the worship, and alleging that they were not in possession of the village and stating that they had no objection to the plaintiff taking possession of the village.

(2.) Defendants 9, 12 and 13 filed a joint written statement, in which it was alleged amongst other matters that the grant, to which reference will presently be made, was hardened with the service of reciting Bhagwat, but that the said reciting was not a condition of the grant and that subsequently rents were imposed in lieu of the recitation of Bhagwat. It was further alleged that the said reciting had not been discontinued. Defendants 10 and 11 filed a separate written statement which alleged that the reciting of the Gita (presumably meaning the Bhagwat) was not a condition of the said grant, that the descendants of the grantees were still daily reciting the Gita, and that the survey record showed that the tenure was not resumable. Defendants 9, 12 and 13 contested the suit; the guardian ad litem of defendants 10, 11 and 14 watched the trial; defendant 15 did not appear.

(3.) The Subordinate Judge made a decree in favour of the plaintiff for recovery of possession of the said village and made a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to recover mesne profits from defendants 9 to 15 for the period mentioned in the decree with directions as to the ascertainment of the said mesne profits. He ordered that the plaintiff's costs should be paid by all the defendants. Defendants 9 to 13 appealed to the High Court, which allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. From this decree of the High Court the plaintiff has appealed to His Majesty in Council. None of the defendants appeared at the hearing of the appeal.