Judgement

Appeal (No. 17 of 1945), by special leave, from a decree of the High Court in its civil appellate jurisdiction (November 25, 1940) which confirmed a judgment and decree of the First Additional District Judge, Dacca (August 24, 1936).

The following facts are taken from the judgment of the Judicial Committee The present suit was instituted in the Court of the First Subordinate Judge at Dacca on July 24, 1930, by the respondent Kumar Ramendra Narayan Roy (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) against the present appellant and others. In the plaint, as subsequently amended on April 15, 1931, the plaintiff sought (ka.) a declaration that he was Kumar Ramendra Narayan Roy, the second son of the late Rajah Rajendra Narayan Roy of Bhowal and (ka. x), that his possession should be confirmed in respect of the one-third share of the properties described in the schedule, or, if from the evidence and under the circumstances plaintiffs possession thereof should not be established, then possession thereof should be given to him. He further asked for injunctions against obstruction to his possession. The present appellant filed a written statement denying, inter alia, the identity of the plaintiff with Kumar Ramendra Narayan Roy (hereinafter referred to as the second Kumar), and alleging that the suit was barred by limitation. Issues were adjusted, and those now relevant were 2. Was the suit barred by limitation ? 4. Was the second Kumar Ramendra Narayan Roy alive? 5. Was the present plaintiff the second Kumar Ramendra Narayan Roy of Bhowal? After a very long trial, lasting for 608 days, the First Additional District Judge delivered an elaborate and careful judgment in favour of the plaintiff on August 24, 1936, and by his order of the same date he ordered and decreed " that it be declared that the plaintiff " is the Kumar Ramendra Narayan Roy, the second son of " the late Rajah Rajendra Narayan Roy, Zemindar of Bhowal, " and that he be put in possession of an undivided one-third " share ;n the properties in suit—the share now in the enjoyment of the first defendant (the present appellant)—jointly " with the other defendants possession over the rest." On an appeal by the present appellant, the appeal was heard by a Special Bench of the High Court, consisting of Costello,

Law Rep. 73 Ind. App. 246 ( 1945- 1946) Bibhabati Devi V. Kumar Ramendra Narayan Roy

134

Biswas and Lodge JJ., and by decree dated November 25 (Lodge J. dissenting) it was ordered and decreed " in accordance " with the opinion of the majority of the judges that the " judgment and decree of the court below be and the same are " hereby affirmed and this appeal dismissed.”

The following is a short account of the family history in the judgment of the trial judge —Rajah Rajendra Narayan Roy, the Zemindar of Bhowal, one of the largest landed proprietors of East Bengal, died on April 26, 1901. The title was personal, but the family was old, and though not entitled to fame, regarded as the premier Hindu Zamindar family of Dacca. The family-seat was at Jaidebpur, a village about twenty miles from Dacca, and situate in the Pargana of Bhowal, a large and fairly compact estate, spreading over the districts of Dacca and Mymensingh. The Raj ah had a residence at Dacca, but he ordinarily lived in his family homeland was undoubtedly a local magnate of the highest position and influence. The rent-roll of the estate was Rs.6,48,353 in 1931. It could not have been much less in the Rajahs time.

The Rajah died leaving him surviving, his widow, Rani Bilasmani, and three sons and three daughters. The sons were Ramendra Narayan Roy, Ramendra Narayan Roy and Rabindra Narayan Roy. Those, mentioned in order of seniority, were known as Bara Kumar, Mejo Kumar and Chhoto Kumar. The daughters were Indumayee, Jyotirmoyee, and Tarinmoyee. Indumayee was the eldest child, Jyotirmoyee the second, then had come the sons, and then the youngest child, Tarinmoyee Debi.

The Rajah had executed before hi