With regard to the appellants witnesses he seemed to think that some of them at least were reliable.
It is obvious that such evidence does number prove the case of the appellant.
The learned Subordinate Judge, who dealt with the suits in the first instance, held that the present appellant had failed to prove his ownership of the trees.
Jodhbir Chand was then created a Raja, with Nadaun and the surrounding companyntry as his Jagir.
On the question of damages, he held that if the appellants claim to ownership of the trees were established, some of the defendants in four of the suits would be liable for small amounts of damages.
Learned companynsel for the appellant has referred us to the evidence of one Babu Kailash Chander witness No.
No such documents were produced.
He was also rewarded with the gift of a Jagir known as the Rajgiri Jagir and received the rest of the State on lease on favourable terms.
104/35 of 1941 42,101/32 of 1941, 103/34 of 1941/42 15/73 of 1941, 102/33 of 1941/42 and 120 of 1941 arising out of the decrees dated July 24, 1941, of the Court of Subordinate Judge, 4th Class, Kangra in Suits Nos.
1567, 1568, 1569, 1570, 1573 an 1574 of 1942 arising out of the decrees dated July 31, 1942, of the Court of the District Judge, Hoshiarpur in Appeals Nos.
He further held that the suits were barred by time.
In cross examination he admitted that he had numberknowledge of the trees in suit number did he know on which lands the trees were standing.
2 for the appellant , who was a Forest Range Officer.
For these reasons, we hold that the appellant has failed to establish his claim to the pine trees, and the decision of the High Court is companyrect.
The State was then annexed to the Sikh kingdom, and only the Rajgiri Jagir was reserved for the royal family.
The present judgment will govern all the six appeals.
The appeals fail and are dismissed.
Mian Fateh Chand, younger brother of Raja Sansar Chand, offered his granddaughter to Raja Hira Singh.
We accept these as good and companyvincing reasons for discountenancing the claim of the appellant that the sovereign rights of the independent rulers of Kangra in respect of all royal trees including pine trees within Nadaun Jagir had companye down to him.
The learned Subordinate Judge did number accept the oral evidence given on behalf of the appellant the learned District Judge, referring to the oral evidence of the respondents, said that he companyld number accept that evidence in preference to the overwhelming historical and documentary evidence led by the appellant.
Raja Rajinder Chand then preferred appeals from the judgment and decrees of the learned Subordinate Judge, and the appeals were heard by the learned District Judge of Hoshiarpur.
Appeals from the judgment and decrees of the Punjab High Court dated December 30, 1949, in Civil Regular Appeals Nos.
In view of their finding that the appellant bad failed to establish his right to the trees, the appeals were allowed and the suits brought by the appellant were dismissed.
of Nadaun Jagir by Maharaja Ranjit Singh.
544, 548, 545, 547, 546 and 549 of 1940.
The defendants then preferred second appeals to the Punjab High Court.
Maharaja Ranjit Singh came to Nadaun, and Jodhbir Chand gave his two sisters to the Maharaja.
These six appeals have companye to this Court on that certificate.
Thus by 1827 28 Kangra had ceased to be an independent principality and was to all intents and purposes annexed to the Sikh kingdom, the son of Mian Fateh Chand and Raja Jodhbir Chand occupying merely the position of Jagirdars tinder the Sikhs, The present appellant, Raja Rajinder Chand, is a direct lineal descendant of Raja Jodhbir Chand, being fourth in the line of descent.
For this reason, the Government maintained their right to the pine trees.
He secretly sent away his family and property across the Sutlej and on hearing that Maharaja Ranjit Singh had started from Lahore for Nadaun, he fled into British territory.
The latter reversed the finding of the ,learned Subordinate Judge on the question of ownership and held that the present appellant had established his right to the trees in question.
196 to 201 of 1953.
We have heard these appeals together, as the questions which arise are the same.
On the main question as to whether the present appellant had been able to establish his right to the trees, the learned Judges of the High Court differed from the learned District Judge and, agreeing with the learned Subordinate Judge, held that the present appellant bad number been able to establish his right to the trees.
He also reversed the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge on the question of limitation, but accepted his finding as to damages.
Three questions arose for decision on the pleadings of the parties.
147, dated July 24, 1847, and also as companytemplated in the previous order of the Nawab Governor General, dated August 7, 1846, subject to the following companyditions In numberway shall criminal jurisdiction in respect of the said Ilaqa vest in the Raja Sahib.
The second question was one of limitation, and the third question related to the quantum of damages claimed by the appellant.
The plaints of the six suits were very brief and did number give sufficient particulars of the claim made by the appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
Accordingly, he allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment and decrees of the learned Subordinate Judge, and gave the appellant the declaration and order of injunction he had asked for, as also damages in four of the suits as assessed by the learned Subordinate Judge.
His son, however, failed to pay the amount agreed upon.
This gentleman said that the trees standing on the land belonging to the landlords were exclu sively owned by the Raja Sahib.
Admittedly, the suit lands lie in Badhog and Jasai tappas companyprised within the Jagir of Nadaun in the district of Kangra.
The other woman was of the Gaddi tribe and by her Raja Sansar Chand had a son, named Raja Jodhbir Chand.
The last independent ruler of Kangra was Raja Sansar Chand who died in the year 1824.
Raja Sansar Chand was a Katoch Rajput and had children from two women one of them, who was a Katoch lady, was his properly married wife and Raja Sansar Chand bad a son by her, named Raja Anirudh Chand.
52 to 76.
Had the Raja been in possession of the pine trees for such a long time as he number claims, one would expect him to produce some documents showing his income, etc.
The defendants, who are the adnamaliks inferior landlords , pleaded that they were the owners in possession of the lands on which the trees stood, that the trees were their property, and that the plaintiff had numberright to the trees number had he ever exercised any right of possession over them.
Bang Beharilal and K. R. Chaudhury, for the appellant.
The great antiquity of the Katoch royal line is undoubted, and the history of the Kangra State from the earliest times right up to its companyquest by the Sikhs under Maharaja Ranjit Singh has been traced in the Kangra District Gazetteer 1924 25 at pp.
October 23.
from the trees.
The learned Judges of the High Court did number refer to the oral evidence except for a slight reference to the state ment of Salig Ram, the Rajas attorney, who appears to have stated that the Raja got his rights in 1893 94 how the Raja got his rights then was number explained.
He brought six suits in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kangra for a declaration that he was the owner of all pine chil pinus longifolia trees standing on the lands of the defendants within the said Jagir and for a permanent injunction restraining the latter from interfering with his rights of ownership and extraction of resin from the said trees.
In view, how ever, of his findings on the questions of ownership and limitation, lie dismissed the suits.
He admitted that he knew numberhing about the rights of the Jagirdar and the landlords inter se with regard to the lands in dispute.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. DAS J. These are six appeals by the plaintiff Raja Rajinder Chand, the superior landlord alamalik of Nadaun Jagir in the district of Kangra.
Ganpat Rai, for the respondent.
M. Sikri, Advocate General for Punjab, Jindra Lal and R. Dhebar, for the Intervener State of Punjab .
He also claimed specified sums as damages for the loss caused to him from the tapping of pine trees by different defendants from March 24, 1940, up to the date when the suits were brought.
The first question was whether all pine trees standing on the lands in suit were the property of the plaintiff, i.e., the present appellant.
