BHAIYA RAMANUJ PRATAP DEO Vs. LALU MAHESHANUJ PRATAP DEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this appeal by the plaintiff are these. Bhaiya Rudra Pratap Deo, the original plaintiff, was the holder of an impartible estate known as Nagaruntari Estate in the district of Pakamau, the succession to which used to be governed by the rule of lineal primogeniture, the junior members of the family being entitled to khorposh or maintenance grants, subiect to payment of quit rent and also to resumption on extinction ot any heii in the male line. The estate was in charge of officials under the Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act from March 1932 until it was released in October, 1945 The estates vested in the State of Bihar under tht Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, in pursuance of a notification dated 5-11-1951. although on account of some litigation it came into the possession of the State Government sometime later.

(2.) The father of the defendant respondent No. 1 was the younger brother of Rudra Pratap Deo and he had been given some maintenance grant Rudra Pratap transferred his interest in eight villages as maintenance grant to the defendant under an unstamped and unregistered document dated 14-4-1952 It included eight villages, including villages Sigsigi and Patihari. But the case of Rudra Pratap was that the last named two villages were fraudulently included in the document by the defendant by bringing his (plaintiff's) employees in collusion with him (defendant) The State of Bihar did not. however, recognise this grant in respect of any of these eight villages on the basis of an enquiry under Section 4 (h) of the 1950 Act and in view of the provisions of Section 12A of the Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act, according to which the holder of an estate cannot, even after release from the purview of the Act, alienate any property appertaining to the estate without the previous sanction of the Divisional Commissioner.

(3.) Subsequently, there was a dispute between Rudra Pratap and the defendant regarding the possession of 170.53 acres of land appertaining to village Sigsigi giving rise to a proceeding under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which was converted into one under Section 145, which was decided against the plaintiffs on 4-7-1955 and possession of the defendant over the suit land was accepted. Hence, the suit was instituted on 9-7-1955 by Rudra Pratap for recovery of possession of this area with mesne profits. The original plaintiff died in September 1957 and his two sons and four widows (of whom the first son is the appellant and the others are respondents here) were substituted in his place as plaintiffs. It may be also stated that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force on the 17th June, 1956; and impartible estatet were abolished by this Act.