SOUTH BIHAR SUGAR MILLS LTD Vs. MAHARAJ PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by defendant No. 1, South Bihar Sugar Mills Ltd., in an action for their ejectment from the lands described in the plaint. The plaintiffs, who were eleven in number, instituted a suit at Arrah against six sets of defendants, of whom the appellants were the first set. In Schedule 4 appended to their plaint, they gave description of 117 bighas 7 kathas of land in mauza Atini, pergana Bhojpur, thana No. 422 in the district of Shahabad and claimed that to be their properly, as settlees from defendant No. 7, Pandita Chanda Bai, who was made the defendant fourth party in suit. That land having been declared in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to be in the possession of the defendants first and second parties, the plaintiffs claimed to recover possession of the same with mesne profits. They also asked for payment of Rs. 10,898-15-0 from those defendants as the price of their crops which were forcibly taken away by them. Alternatively, the plaintiffs asked for a money decree as staled in Schedule La against defendants fourth, fifth and sixth parties, or any of them that may be found liable. Their case, in brief, was that the proprietorship of village Atini bearing tauzi No. 1553/8 and of village Ranbirpur in tauzi No. 1258/8 was with defendants 7 to 20. In 1927, the proprietors reclaimed some lands in those two villages and established an agricultural farm, under the name Jineshwar Garh Farm. In a Partition Suit No. 1 of 1941 between the proprietors, in which the decree was passed on the basis of an award, the village Atini was given to Pandita Chanda Bai, defendant No. 7, who came in exclusive possession of the same. The plaintiffs took from her some lands in that village for cultivation in 1350, 1351 and 1352 Fasli. In all, it was about 117 bighas. On the 26th of June, 1946, Pandita Chanda Bai, defendant No. 7, settled those lands permanently with the plaintiffs and executed and registered an instrument in that respect. The Raja of Surajpura, defendant second party, wanted to take that settlement but, being unsuccessful, threatened the plaintiffs with dire consequences. The plaintiffs paid Rs. 17,550 as premium to defendant No. 7, and after taking settlement, spent large sums of money over reclamation and clearance of jungle and levelling the land. They were, however, obstructed by the south Bihar Sugar Mills and their employees and ultimately a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was started between the parties which terminated in favour of the defendant first party and against the plaintiffs.

(2.) Pandita Chanda Bai, defendant No. 7, supported the plaintiffs by filing her written statement. On behalf of the minor defendants 13 to 15 and 17 to 19, a written statement was filed, by which the plaintiffs' averments were denied. The real contest was given by defendant No. 1, the Mill, which filed an elaborate written statement, asserting that only defendants 8 and 9 were the proprietors of the villages Atini and Ranbirpur and they established the Jineshwar Garh Farm consisting of the lands in those two villages including the suit lands. The Board of Directors of the Mill resolved on the 25th January, 1938, to acquire that farm land by perpetual lease. The proprietors sold that farm to defendant No. 1 for Rs. 1,12,000 and leased that land permanently to the Mill, at an annual rent of rupee one per bigha. On the 28th January, 1938, they paid Rs. 1,12,000 to the proprietors. They have continued in possession all through. They asserted that there was no valid settlement of the lands with the plaintiffs nor were they in possession of them. The partition suit and decree were only fraudulent measures to protect the properties from the creditors and tax liabilities. They also raised the bar of limitation against the suit. With these pleadings, the parties went to trial.

(3.) Two of the important issues (Issues Nos. 4 and 6) were: