Judgement

Appeal (No. 92 of 1927) from a decree of the High Court (March 11, 1926) reversing a decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Hazaribagh (April 18, 1922).

The suit was instituted in 1920 on behalf of the respondent, the Maharaja of Ramgarh, a minor, for a declaration that a taluk called Jagodih, consisting of certain villages which were included in his zamindari at the permanent settlement, was a jagir resumable on the failure (which had occurred

Law Rep. 58 Ind. App. 17 ( 1930- 1931) Charu Chandra Ghose V. Kumar Kamakhya Narain Singh

167

admittedly) of lineal male descendants of the grantee, and for possession. He contended that an entry in the record-of-rights prepared under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, to the effect that the taluk was a shamilat or shikmi taluk of his estate was incorrect. The present appellant was defendant No. 3 and claimed to hold a share in Jagodih by right of purchase.

The trial judge dismissed the suit on the ground that the evidence showed that the plaintiff had no proprietary rights ; he held that the defendants were not barred or estopped from so contending.

On appeal the decision was reversed and a decree was made as prayed. The learned judges held that the defendants were mere jagirdars; further that a decision in 1793 operated as res judicata to prevent the defendants from now claiming a proprietary right.

1930. July 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15. De Gruyther K.C., Dunne K.C. and Dube for the appellant.

Upjohn K.C., L. P. E. Pugh and Wallach for the respondent.

The arguments were chiefly upon the facts appearing from the documentary evidence. Reference was made to Juggut-mohinee Dossee v. Sookhemony Dossee (( 1871) 17 Suth.

W. R. 41 P. C.); Sonet Kowar v. Himmut Bahadoor (( 1876) L.R. 3 I. A. 92.); Chattra Kumari Devi

v. Broucke (( 1927) L. R. 541. A. 432.); Kumar Kamakhya Narain Singh v. Bhuvaneshwar Lal Singh. (( 1928) I. L. R. 7 P. 595.)

Oct. 21. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

SIR JOHN WALLIS. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court at Patna reversing the decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Hazaribagh and decreeing the suit brought by the Court of Wards on behalf of the minor zamindar of Ramgarh for a declaration that the suit villages forming the Jagodih estate are an ordinary jagir of the Raj resumable on failure of the direct male line of the grantee, and are not a shamilat or shikmi taluk of the Ramgarh estate as recorded in the " khewat " or record-of-rights of the zamindari made by the Settlement Officer under the provisions of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908.

The adjoining parganas of Chai and Champa, one to the north and the other to the south of the Barrakur river, form part of the Ramgarh zamindari in the Hazaribagh district of Chota Nagpur. The Jagodih estate is situated in Chai, and is one of several estates in these parganas which were recorded in the settlement as shamilat taluks—that is to say, taluks in which the talukdars or proprietors now pay the Government revenue to the zamindar instead of paying it directly to Government. Although this dependence is strictly limited, these estates have also acquired the name of shikmi, or belly, taluks, as being now in the maw of the zamindar, who has sometimes been tempted to claim them as portions of his own estate held on jagir tenure and resumable in certain events. In recent years the question has assumed increased importance as affecting the ownership of minerals.

In this, as in the Barsote case, Surendra Nath Karan Deo v. Kamakhya Narain Singh (P. C. Appeal No. 89 of 1927. The judgment of the Board (Lord Sumner, Lord Thank erton, Sir John Wallis, and Sir Lancelot Sanderson)), the Raja of Ramgarh is seeking to establish that this estate is held under him on jagir tenure. In that case the Board, agreeing with the Subordinate Judge, allowed the defendants appeal and dismissed the suit on the ground that as no suit had been brought in the Revenue Court to rectify the entry in