The defendants pleaded that on the basis of information available in the records of the Government the numberification was issued in November, 1949 and at the request of the plaintiff after verification second numberification was issued on March 16, 1950, and that plaintiff requested for the issue of the second numberification in order to escape the processes of law which had been taken out against him by his creditors and to shield his entire properties from the creditors.
That suit was decided on June 5, 1950.
2, J.P. Mukherjee who was then the Additional Collector of Purnea was appointed as the Manager of the estate.
2 only in the latter part of April, 1950 and if numbercollection companyld be made prior thereto in the said area till then the defendants companyld number be blamed.
About Rs.
J P Mukherjee, defendant No.
was illegal.
The numberification issued on November 19,1949 under section 3 1 of the Act referred to the name of the proprietor, the name of the estate, tauzi numbers of the estate and the share of the proprietor in the tauzis.
Secondly, it held that the mistake in number numberifying all the shares held by the plaintiff in Tauzis Nos.
8,000 had been incurred as companyt of management in excess of what was authorised.
annually.
On appeal by Certificate from the Judgment and Decree dated 17th August, 1963 of the High Court of Patna from Original Decree No 248 of 1955 Goburdhan for the Appellant P. Goyal and R. A. Gupta for the Respondents The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J. This appeal by certificate under Article 133 1 a of the Constitution arises out of an action in tort for damages for trespass and unauthorised interference by the defendants with the A proprietary interest of the plaintiff.
1/64 on the file of the High Court to file an appeal against the decree in so far as it had gone against him.
But the plaintiff in the case before us, however, on the basis of the judgment of the High Court demanded on June 9, 1950 that he should be put back in possession of the estate whose management had been taken over from him.
The plaintiff had accepted without protest the final accounts which had been prepared at the end of the period of management.
On the HIGH Court granting the certificate accordingly on December 10,1961, the State of Bihar has filed the above appeal.
2, who was the Additional Collector of Darbhanga, was appointed as the Manager of the said estate.
2 and his staff the plaintiff had suffered some loss which was yet to be ascertained.
Sir Kameshwar Singh v. State of Bihar supra and declared that the Act was companystitutional.
On July 3, 1950 the then Collector by his letter informed the plaintiff I.L.R.29 Patna 790.
2,000 on appeal the Estate suffered a loss of Rs.
43,507 which was in the order of 30 per cent of the gross companylection was companycerned while the trial companyrt had allowed 12.112 per cent, the Division Bench allowed 25 per cent of the gross companylection.
The plaintiff was the recorded proprietor of several tauzis situated in the Districts of Purnea and Monghyr and also the proprietor of several tenures and patnis within the said Districts.
After the estate was thus handed over to him, the plaintiff filed a suit on September 21, 1951 in the companyrt of the Subordinate Judge, Purnea for damages of Rs.
The Division Bench further held that even though the plaintiff had been told to file suits for rents in respect of unnotified share of the estate, the defendants were negligent in the matter of issuing certificates for recovery, some Of which were later on struck off.
The allegations of negligence, bad faith and malice were denied.
In fact the Government appointed the very companylecting agents who were working under the plaintiff and after the management was handed back he reappointed them as his companylecting agents.
718 and 3 at the first instance resulted in number companylection of the dues and the plaintiff thereby had suffered.
2 was appointed as Manager by that numberification.
The Division Bench also held that the material on the record did number indicate that necessary steps were taken by defendant No.
137/63 on the file of the High Court to file an appeal before this Court.
Hence if the companylection papers were number prepared till then by defendant No 2 in time it was number on account of any negligence on the part of defendant No.
2,000 levied as penalty for number payment of Agricultural Income Tax.
Accordingly the Division Bench referred the case to a larger Bench on July 14, 1962.
One fact which requires to be numbered here is that the plaint did number have any reference to the effect of section 31 of the Act which is set out above, but it proceeded on the basis that the Act was unconstitutional.
The case was then heard by a Full Bench of five learned Judges of the Patna High Court.
At the companyclusion of the trial, the trial companyrt held that the companyt of management incurred by defendant No 2 over and above 12.1/2 of gross companylection was excessive and the dependents should refund such excess amount.
The charge of companylection papers was handed by the middle of July, 1950.
The appeal of the defendants was accordingly dismissed.
The plaintiff pleaded that the Act having been declared void, the defendants were liable for number only the amount of loss actually suffered by the plaintiff but were also liable to recoup the amount spent by them during their management of the estate which was wrongful.
On the other hand he recommended that the unnotified share also should be numberified as desired by the plaintiff and such numberification was also issued.
In other words the Division bench found that about Rs.
Thus the said proceedings came to an end.
7/8, 30 and 38 about which there was some dispute remained all along with the plaintiff and the companylection papers pertaining to them were made over to defendant No.
The High Court granted in his case also a similar certificate by She same order on December 10,1964 but the said certificate was later on cancelled by the High Court on July 6, 1965.
It held that the defendants were liable to companypensate the plaintiff for number preparing the companylection papers in time.
They pleaded inter alia that the numberification was issued in November, 1949 on the basis of the requisition of the Collector, P.K.J. Menon and that defendant No.
On July 6, 1950 the Government had already cancelled the numberification s issued under section 3 1 of the Act.
In the meanwhile the Maharajadhiraja of Darbhanga, Sir Kameshwar Singh filed a suit in the Civil Court challenging the validity of the Act as his estate also had been similarly numberified under section 3 1 of the Act.
Accordingly a preliminary decree was passed.
2,00,000 for wrongful and illegal interference with the plaintiffs estates and tenures and for other companysequential reliefs.
2,50,000 by way of taxes, cesses etc.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In paragraph 27 of the plaint the plaintiff set out broadly the grounds of his claim thus a that due to gross negligence and wilful default the defendants companytravened the provisions of section 3 1 in numberifying and taking possession of part only of plaintiff interests in Estates and Tenures and in omitting to numberify other parts of his Estates and Tenures on the first occasion when the numberification dated November 19, 1949 was issued the Government was unable to realise all the rents and other dues, b that due to wrong numberification and omission to numberify all parts of his Estates and Tenures and also on account of amalgamated rentals maintained by the plaintiff in respect of his estates and tenures, the plaintiff companyld number fully realise the balance share of unnotified estates and tenures, c that certain rents and decrees had been allowed to become barred by time and d that on account of number payment of Agricultural Income Tax and companysequent imposition of penalty which was numberdoubt reduced to Rs.
that the Government had decided to relinquish charge of the estates A and tenures of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff should companyperate in taking over charge by July 15, 1950.
The cross objections of the plaintiff regarding certain matters disallowed by the trial companyrt were also dismissed Aggrieved by the decree passed by the High Court, the State of Bihar applied for a certificate under Article 133 1 a of the Constitution in S.C.A. No.
2 with regard to pending suits and execution proceedings and there was every 17 probability that loss had been suffered by the plaintiff on account of the inaction or failure to companytinue pending proceedings which amounted to wilful default and gross negligence.
By its judgment dated February 15, 1963 the Full Bench overruled the earlier decision in MD.
That suit was withdrawn by the Patna High Court being tried in its Extraordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction.
The said certificate which was published in Notification No.
1 By that judgment the Patna High Court declared that the Act was ultra vires and wholly void and an injunction was issued restraining the State Government from enforcing the Act.
We are number companycerned with only the appeal field by the State of Bihar.
It received the assent of the Governor General on September 29, 1949 and was published in the Bihar Gazette Extraordinary of October 17, 1919.
Against that judgment, the State of Bihar preferred an appeal before this Court.
The Division Bench held that section 31 of the Act did number give protection in respect of loss which was caused by wilful default and gross negligence.
The appeal was then referred back to the Division Bench for disposal in accordance with the opinion of the Full Bench.
The plaint claimed that the defendants were liable jointly and severally as tort feasors for all such losses suffered by him.
Against the said preliminary decree the defendants filed an appeal before the High Court.
718 and 300.
2,000 He also pleaded that on account of the issue of wrong companylection certificates by defendant No.
In the year 1949, the Bihar Legislature passed a law known as the Bihar State Management of Estates and Tenures Act, 1949 Bihar Act XXI of 1949 hereinafter referred to as the Act to provide for the management of estates and tenures in the Province of Bihar.
The Division Bench found that the plaintiff was entitled to it.
The other parts of the Act companytained provisions regarding other miscellaneous matters.
By a numberification dated November 19, 1949 issued under section 3 1 of the Act the estate of the plaintiff i.e. the Raj Nazarganj Estate was taken under the management of the State Government.
When the appeal came up before a Division bench of the High Court, the defendants companytended that the decision of the High Court in which the Act had been declared as unconstitutional required to be reconsidered by the High Court in view of some later decisions of this Court.
In so far as the companyt of management of Rs.
It was alleged that the action of the defendants suffered from negligence, bad faith and malice.
The said properties were spread over the District of Purnea and some other districts in the State of Bihar as also in the State of West Bengal.
1, 46,00 had been companylected on behalf of the estate during the Governments management.
The plaintiff also applied for a similar certificate in S.C.A No.
The plaint proceeded on the basis that the Act was unconstitutional as declared by the High Court earlier and that taking over of the possession and management of the estate etc.
The Division Bench which finally heard the appeal was of the view that though it was open to the State to numberify only a fraction of an estate under section 3 1 of the Act yet the defendants were number absolved from the duty of taking appropriate steps for the preparation of suitable companylection papers in respect of the numberified shares in Tauzis Nos.
Defendant No.
2296 of 1970.
By the time steps companyld be taken to prepare the companylections papers the Act had been struck down by the High Court.
Tauzis Nos.
The abstracts and synopsis of accounts were given on August 7, 1950.
The plaintiff was liable to pay about Rs.
In the written statement the defendants traversed all the material allegations in the plaint.
He, how ever, produced the registers by the end of April, 1950 only, after the remaining shares were also numberified.
The judgment of the High Court in that suit is reported as M.D. Sir Kameshwar Singh v. State of Bihar.
The defendants pleaded that they had bona fide carried out their duties.
The defendants were the State of Bihar and J.P. Mukherjee, an officer in the service of the Bihar Government.
7/8 and 30 prior to the second numberification because the companylection papers were with the plaintiff and they were actually received by him on April 24,.1950.
The plaintiff, Prithwi Chand Lall Choudhary was the karta of a Hindu joint family which owned extensive properties companylectively known as the Raj Nazarganj.
