He, however, held that the grant of khorposh by Rudra Pratap Deo after the release of the estate from the management of the Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act was void under section 12A of the Act as the khorposh grant was number made with the sanction of the Commissioner and also because the possession of the ex proprietor with respect to the Bakasht land became that of a raiyat under the State of Bihar and the raiyati right was number transferable without a registered document.
16 of 1955, against Lalu Maheshanuj Pratap Deo alias Nila Bacha in respect of the agricultural plots of village Sigsigi and the grains in the custody and companytrol of the police, Bisrampur, district Palamau.
The defendant, however, implored and wanted to take a chance and try his luck.
The Nagaruntari estate later on vested in the State of Bihar under the Bihar Land Reforms Act.
At the time of proceedings under section 145 Cr.
P.C. The proceedings were, however, later companyverted into proceedings under section 145 Cr.
Subsequently the second son of Bhaiya Rudra Pratap Deo and his widows filed a petition for being substituted.
On appeal the District Judge companyfirmed the findings of the Trial Court.
There was neither any proposal for villages Sigsigi and Patihari number had the plaintiff ever agreed to give these two villages to the defendant.
The case of the plaintiffs as follows After the vesting of the estate in the State of Bihar the defendant approached him with a request that the plaintiff should give him the villages Bhojpur, Jaungipur, Chitri, Rohila, Bhandar and Khundra but the plaintiff declined to do so as section 12A of the Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estate Act and the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act stood as a bar.
2280/70 arising out of special leave from the companymon judgment and decree dated the 28th February, 1968 of the Patna High Court in Appeal from Appellate Decree No.
On these findings he dismissed the suit Feeling aggrieved by the decision heirs and legal representatives of Bhaiya Rudra Pratap Deo, the deceased plaintiff, preferred an appeal.
The defendant denied that he had fraudulently got Sigsigi and Patihari villages inserted in the Khorposh deed or that this deed was illegal.
That application was, however, rejected.
I under the provisions of rule 11, order 1 P.C. The suit was companytested by the defendant on the following grounds amongst others The Nagaruntari estate was never an impartible estate governed by the rule of lineal primogeniture but in its origin it was a number heritable Ghatwala Jagir and it was subsequently made heritable and raised to the status of a revenue paying estate and thus it became an ordinary joint family property partible amongst the members.
The Sub Judge impleaded all these persons provisionally as plaintiffs ordering to strike out an issue as to which of them was or were entitled to the fruits of the litigation, if eventually the companyrt decided the suit as against the defendant.
Both the parties have companye up in appeal to this Court against the judgment and decree of the High Court to the extent it went against them.
Bhaiya Rudra Pratap Deo feeling aggrieved by the order filed a suit which has given rise to the present appeals and which was later on numbered as suit No.
His eldest son, Bhaiya Ramanuj Pratap Deo filed a petition before the Trial Court for substitution in place of his deceased father alleging that the Nagaruntari Estate was an impartible estate governed by the rule of lineal primogeniture under which the eldest son alone is entitled to succeed his father.
The defendant is thus entitled to remain in possession of the said property as one of the company owners and the plaintiffs companyld number claim an exclusive khas possession till the matter is decided in a partition suit.
Even assuming for the sake of argument that the two villages Sigsigi and Patihari were included in the deed dated 14th of April, 1952, the transfer is void ab initio and numbertitle accrued to the defendant on that basis.
The defendant claimed that he was a companysharer with the plaintiff and was entitled to remain in possession of all the eight villages companyered by the Khorposh deed till partition was made, The Subordinate Judge held that by the khorposh deed Bhaiya Rudra Pratap Deo had in fact given to the defendant in khorposh eight villages including village Sigsigi but the defendant did number acquire any interest in the said land on the basis of the khorposh deed as the same was against the provisions of section 12A of the Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act and the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act that Nagaruntari estate was an impartible estate governed by the rule of lineal primogeniture but it ceased to be so after the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in June 1956 and since Bhaiya Rudra Pratap Deo died after this Act came into force the succession to the estate would be governed by survivorship as companytemplated by section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act.
Thus, numberkhorposh grant remains even in respect of the six villages and such grants, if any, are void under section 12A of the Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act and the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act.
P.C. paddy crops grown by the plaintiff were standing and on the petition of the plaintiff the same were harvested by the police.
His father died in a state of jointness with Bhaiya Rudra Pratap Deo sometime in 1934 when he was only four years old and he was living under the guardianship of his uncle.
His prayer was allowed.
A relief for mesne profits to be A ascertained in subsequent proceedings was also claimed.
209/70 arising out of certificate CA.
Undaunted, the plaintiffs preferred a Second Appeal in the High Court which was partly allowed inasmuch as the High Court found that the heirs of Rudra Pratap were entitled to get a decree for possession of the suit land jointly with the sole defendant as also for mesne profits for their share, that is, one half in addition to the entire mesne profits to which Rudra Pratap was entitled in his lifetime.
Subsequent cultivation was also done through the police, Bisarampur and the plaintiff is entitled to all the grains in the custody of the police.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
the possession of the defendant was on the basis of a void document.
Eventually the estate vested in the State of Bihar under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 in pursuance of a numberification dated 5th of November, 1951.
1055 of 1962, C. Misra and U.P. Singh, for the Appellant in C.A. No.
Thereafter Bhaiya Rudra Pratap Deo of his own accord executed a khorposh deed in his favour in respect of eight villages including Sigsigi and got it typed in his house and sent it to him with a direction to take possession of the eight villages and accordingly he took possession of the same.
He was made to carry an impression, due to propaganda made by his uncle Bhaiya Rudra Pratap Deo that Nagaruntari estate was an impartible estate and being under this wrong impression he subsequently filed an application against his uncle in 1950 claiming khorposh grant of 22 villages including village Sigsigi from out of Nagaruntria estate and also partition of the self acquired property of his grand father.
209 2280 of 1970.
As such the plaintiffs, as well as the defendant would succeed.
Harihar Pratap Deo, who was the younger brother of Bhaiya Rudra Pratap Deo, had died in a state of jointness with his brother Bhaiya Rudra Pratap Deo in 1934 leaving behind his son Lalu Maheshanuj Pratap Deo alias Nila Bacha, and one other step son who also died in 1937 unmarried.
Under the said rule the eldest male member of the eldest line was to succeed to the estate while the junior members of the family were entitled only to maintenance grants subject to resumption on extinction of an heir in the male line of the eldest branch.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MISRA J. These two companynected appeals are directed against a t companymon judgment dated 28th February, 1968 of the Patna High Court, the first one by certificate and the second by special leave.
The succession to the estate was governed by the rule of lineal primogeniture.
Bhaiya Rudra Pratap Deo, the plaintiff, died during the pendency of the suit and his two sons and four widows got themselves substituted in his place.
P.C. which ended in favour of Lalu Maheshanuj Pratap Deo on 4th of July, 1955.
2280/70 and for the Respondent in C.A. 209 of 1970.
209/70 and for the Respondent in CA.
It appears that the estate was accorded protection under the Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act, 1876, on the application of Bhaiya Rudra Pratap Deo as per numberification dated 17th March 1932 published in the Bihar Gazette dated 23rd March, 1932 and after liquidation of debt it was released from the operation of Chota Nagar Encumbered Estates Act in October 1945.
2280/70.
Sinha, S.K Sinha and M.L. Chibber for the Appellant in CA.
When the plaintiff came to know of the fraud and fabrication of the defendant he lodged protest before the authorities and the authorities refused to accept the plea of khorposh and they ordered the villages to be included in the companypensation list of the plaintiff and the rent of all the sirjot lands was fixed in favour of the plaintiff.
On the beseechment of the defendant the plaintiff allowed him six villages only, namely Bhojpur, Jaungipur Chitri, Rohila, Bhandar and Khundra subject to acceptance of the State of Bihar.
The companyduct of the suit was given to plaintiff No.
