B S HICKEY Vs. JAI NARAIN THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiffs who are aggrieved by the concurrent decisions of the Courts below by which they have dismissed their suit which was instituted for a declaration that the assessment of choukidari tax on the appellants wag illegal and ultra vires of the provisions of the Village Choukidari Act, 1870, hereinafter to be referred to as the Choukidari Act.

(2.) The facts are these. Plaintiff 1 is the Maharaja Bahadur of Darbhanga and the other plaintiffs are his Circle Manager, Circle Officers and other amlas of village Benipur situated within his zamindary. The circle office in village Benipur has one block of buildings a portion of which is used as the office and the other portion is in occupation of plaintiff 2, Mr. Hickey, who is the manager of the circle, as his residence. There are also five separate blocks attached to the building which are in the occupation of the other plaintiffs 3 to 16 who were serving at the place in various capacities as amins, clerks etc., under the manager. Under the Choukidary Act the Maharaja Bahadur has been assessed under Section 14 as he has in village Benipur a katchery for collecting rents. This assessment has been rightly made and is not the subject of the suit. The plaintiffs grievance is that in addition to the assessment of Maharaja Bahadur who is plaintiff 1 his servants and amlas have also been assessed "as occupiers of houses" in this village, and hence they seek for a declaration that this additional assessment is ultra vires of the Choukidary Act.

(3.) The Courts below have taken the view that although plaintiffs 2 to 16 were admittedly not the permanent residents of village Benipur and have no house of their own there, but as they were in possession of the houses exclusively inter se and their possession could not be interfered with by anybody, they are liable to be assessed under the Choukidary Act.