Deonath Singh vs Debendranath Rai and Others

Das, J.—This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the appellant for resumption of Mauzas Hesatu, Harchanda, Barwe and Gagri included in what has been referred to as mahal Khatanga Patti. There is no dispute that sometime in 1778 the then Maharaja of Chota Nagpur made a grant of mahal Khatanga Patti including the disputed mauzis to Raja Bhaiya Ram. The plaintiff is the son of one Ghasi who was the great-grandson of Raja Bhaiya Ram. Raja Bhaiya Ram had a grandson Brij Mohan, who in due course succeeded to the interest of Bhaiya Ram. Brij Mohan had four sons, Umrao, Kumbkaran, Kinu and Ghasi, We are not concerned in this litigation with the interest of Kumbkaran who appears to have surrendered his interest in the mahal in question. It is the case of the plaintiff that Umrao, Kinu and Ghasi made grants of the mauzas in question to one Jit Narain Tewari. The plaintiffs case is that Jit Narain''s family is now extinct and that in the events which have happened, he is entitled to resume the mauzas in suit. According to him Mauza Hiasatu was granted to Jit Narain by Umrao, Kinu and Ghasi on Pous Badi 9th, 1909, corresponding with 2nd January, 1845; Barwe was granted to Jit Narain by Umrao, Kinu and Ghasi on Assar Badi 11th, 1906, corresponding with 17th July, 1849; Harchanda was granted by Umrao, Kinu and Ghasi to Jit Narain on Baisak Badi 5th, 1917, corresponding with 18th April, 1854 and Gagri was granted by Ghasi and Mitrabhan, who was the son of Kinu to Jit Narain on Kartic Sudi 8th, 1911, corresponding with 28th October, 1854. It is the common case that Jit Narain''s branch is now extinct; but the defendants resist the suit principally on the ground that the grants were to Jit Narain and his brothers Dhrit Narain and Udit Narain; and as it is admitted that the branches of Udit Narain and Dhrit Narain are not extinct, the defendants contend that the plaintiff is not entitled to succeed in the action. Other questions were raised by the defendants but it is not necessary for us to enter upon them as I have no doubt whatever that the plaintiff must fail on the ground that the grants were not to Jit Narain alone but to Jit Narain, Dhrit Narain and Udit Narain.

In support of his case the plaintiff relied upon the grants alleged to have been made by the members of his family. They are Exs. 4, 4-A, 4-B and 4-C. The defendants contended that the documents upon which the plaintiff was relying were forged and fabricated documents and they put forward certain documents as supporting their claim. The learned Subordinate Judge has dealt with the while question with very great care and ability and he has shown that the document upon which the plaintiff relied in his Court are all forged and fabricated documents. We have no hesitation whatever in agreeing with the view which has been taken by the learned Subordinate Judge. It is not necessary for us to deal elaborately with this case; for Mr. N. C. Sinha does not seriously contend before us that the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge on this point is erroneous. It is sufficient to say that these documents are all on plain paper, unstamped and unregistered and have never seen the light of day until they were actually filed in this case. The learned Subordinate Judge has shown that there were occasions when these documents, if genuine, should have been produced and I entirely agree with the reasoning of the learned Subordinate Judge. I held that the plaintiff''s case on this point is wholly false and that the plaintiff''s suit was rightly dismissed on this ground.

The appeal fails and must be dismissed With costs.

Adami, J.

I agree.