On second appeal, it was held that the suits were within limitation and were then decreed for the second time.
On special appeal to the High Court, the suits were remanded for trial on the ques tion of limitation, and after remand they were dismissed by the trial companyrt and the Court of appeal as barred by limita tion.
Against the remand order appeals were preferred to the High Court and the High Court decreed the appeals in these terms We set aside the portion of the decision of the Dis trict Judge which remands the cases to the original companyrt to determine the companyditions under which the patnidar is to hold the lands under the zamindar.
The High Court by the judgment under appeal modified the decrees of the District Judge and disallowed the claim for equitable set off in its entirety for the subsequent period and restored the decree of the trial companyrt.
861 to 885 of 1939 from the judgments and decrees dated the 16th December, 1938, of the Court of the District Judge, Birbhum, in Title Appeals Nos.
After a prolonged enquiry the trial companyrt on 18th December, 1937, decreed the plaintiffs claim for mesne profits after allow ing the zamindar the deductions claimed by him up to the date of assessment of mesne profits but disallowed the amount claimed by way of equitable set off for the subse quent period.
68 to 74 were filed in September, 1904, by Maharaja Bahadur Singh in the companyrt of the differ ent Munsifs at Rampurhat, against Raja Ranjit Singh Bahadur, deceased, and others, for a declaration of his title to the lands mentioned in the different suits and for mesne profits from the year 1899 till recovery of possession.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Appeals from the judgments and decrees dated the 23rd February, 1945, of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta Akram and Blank JJ.
An application was also made in the High Court for permission to urge additional grounds number already taken.
The plaintiff actually obtained possession of the lands involved in these suits in August, 1913.
This decision was affirmed on appeal to His Majesty in Council.
The learned District Judge on appeal reversed this decision and allowed the defendant the amount claimed by him by way of equitable set off, subject, however, to the companydition that the dues of the defendant should be deducted from the dues of the plaintiff till the defendants dues were wiped off.
Against the judgment and decrees of the District Judge the plaintiff preferred appeals to the High Court at Calcut ta.
Rest of the remand order will stand.
April 2.
During the pendency of the proceedings in the High Court, Raja Bhupendra Narayan Singh died and the present appellant was impleaded as his heir and representative.
By an order dated 9th June, 1947, all the appeals were admitted and it was directed that the proceedings be printed and.
Sitaram Bannerjee Arun Kumar Dutta and Amiya Kurnar Mukherjea, with him for the appellant in Civil Appeals Nos.
The zamindar filed applications for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council.
That the said munafa should have been assessed on a fair share of the profits from the land.
transmitted to England.
An application under Order XIX, rule 4, of the Supreme Court Rules was presented at the hearing of the appeals that the appellant be allowed to urge the following additional grounds in support of the appeals, viz.
23 to 47 of 1938.
The second batch of appeals Nos.
That the munafa rent should number be calculated on the basis of the principles laid down in Radhacharan v. Maharaja Ranjit Singh 1 .
This was resisted by the defendant and it was pleaded that the plaintiff was number entitled to inter est on mesne profits, that the zamindar was entitled to receive the profits of the disputed lands and that deduc tion should be made out of the amount of the mesne profits on account of munafa and the amount of chowkidari dues as well as cesses due to him or paid by him.
Sitaram Bannerjee Arun Kumar Dutta and Amiya Kumar Mukherjee, with him for the appellant in Civil Appeals Nos.
Panchanan Ghose Chadra Nath Mukherji, with him for the respondents Nos.
The suits were decreed on 17th August, 1905, and 19th August, 1905, by the two companyrts respectively and the decisions were affirmed on appeal by the District Judge.
A certifi cate was granted for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council.
1 to 3 in Civil Appeals No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MAHAJAN J. These appeals are directed against the judgment and decrees of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta, dated 23rd February, 1945, reversing the judgment and decrees passed by the District Judge of Birbhum dated 16th December, 1938.
It was alleged that the lands in the several suits were chowkidari chakran lands within the plaintiffs patnidari, granted to his predecessors in interest on 14th November, 1853, by the ancestors of the defendant, that as the lands were in the possession of village watchmen on service tenures, they were excluded from assessment of land revenue and numberrent was paid on them, that in the year 1899 under the provisions of sections 50 and 51 of Bengal Act VI of 1870 Government resumed the lands, terminated the service tenures and settled them with the zamindar, that in this situation the plaintiff as patnidar became entitled to their actual physi cal possession, that the zamindar wrongfully took physical possession of them and denied the right of the plaintiff and hence he was entitled to the reliefs claimed.
Against these decrees appeals were preferred to His Majesty in Council by special leave.
An applica tion was made for ascertainment of mesne profits on 6th November, 1918.
The plaintiffs ob tained delivery of possession of the lands in the mean while on 23rd November, 1910.
75 to 92 of 1951.
68 to 74 of 1951.
75 to 92 of 1951.
The District Judge on appeal remanded the cases for determination of the companyditions and terms under which the patnidar was to hold the lands under the zamindar and directed ascertainment of profits.
The principal questions for determina tion are the same in all of them and can be companyveniently disposed of by one judgment.
Five years later, on 24th June, 1927, another set of objections was filed by the zamindar claiming deduction out of mesne profits by way of equitable set off of the payments made by him subsequent to the date of delivery possession as well as for the amount of munafa that became payable to him after that date.
75 to 92 of 1951 arises out of 18 suits instituted in the companyrt of the Munsif of Rampurhat on 22nd December, 1909, by Ganpat Singh and Narpat Singh, predecessors in interest of respondents 1 to 3 against the predecessor in interest of the appellant, late Raja Ranjit Singh Bahadur, and also some other persons who were tenants under him, for a declaration of the plaintiffs title to the resumed chowkidari chakran lands and for khas possession of the same and for mesne profits.
Against this decision special appeals were preferred to the High Court and by the judgment under appeal the decision of the trial companyrt was restored.
It is necessary to set out briefly the history of this half a century old litigation I The seven suits out of which arise Appeals Nos.
in Second Appeals Nos.
After the abolition of the jurisdiction of the Privy Council these appeals were transmitted to this Court.
Urukramdas Chakravarthy S. N. Mukherjee, with him for the respondent No.
1 an additional rent, to be deter mined on the principle that the original patni rent should bear the same ratio to the patni rent number payable by the plaintiffs as the original Hustbood at the time of the creation of the patni should bear to the present increased Hustbood, or any other fair and equitable rent which may be determined at the time of assessing the mesne profits.
1 in Civil Appeals Nos.
68 to 74 of 1951.
