Judgement

Appeal (No. 103 of 1921) from a decree of the High Court (June 4, 1919) affirming a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Hazaribagh.

The suit was brought by the plaintiffs (now represented by the appellants), suing on their own behalf and on behalf of Digambari community of Jains, against the first respondent, the Raja of Palganj, and the manager of his estate appointed under the Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act (VI. of 1876). The plaintiffs claimed specific performance of an agreement made in November, 1908, for the grant of a lease, and for other relief.

The first respondent by his written statement pleaded that the alleged agreement was incompetent, and that there was no concluded agreement fit to be specifically performed.

The facts appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit. He was of opinion that there was a concluded agreement, but that it was inoperative since it was not made by the manager appointed under the Act.

Pending the appeal to the High Court certain other litigation had been compromised on the terms of the grant of a lease of the hill to the Sitambari community of Jains. The second respondent, representing that community, was made a party to the present suit at his own request.

The High Court affirmed the decision of the Subordinate Judge. The learned judges were of opinion that there was no concluded agreement; further, also, they agreed that only the manager appointed under the Act was competent to grant a lease of part of the estate.

1924. Feb. 17, 18. Dunne K.C. and Kenworthy Brawn for the appellants.

De Gruyther K.C., Sir George Lowndes K.C. and Dube for respondent No. 2.

March 18. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

LORD SHAW OF DUNFERMLINE. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, dated June 4, 1919, which affirmed a judgment and decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Hazaribagh, dated July 24, 1917.

The prayers contained in the suit are numerous, but the outstanding and substantial questions which were argued before the Board were two in number. The first was for a declaration that an agreement dated November 30, 1908, "is binding upon the defendant." The second is for specific performance of this agreement, and that possession be made over with the demised property to the plaintiffs and the sum of Rs. 50,000 as, and by way of, compensation of damages paid to the plaintiffs. Shortly stated, the suit is one for specific performance of an agreement prefaced by a declaration that that agreement is binding.

The question of who are the parties to the suit raises an important question in the case. The defendant is thus named " Raja Ran Bahadur Singh, son of Raja Paresh Nath Singh, deceased, holder of the Palganj Estate in Hazaribagh, by his representative and guardian for this suit Babu Krishna Chandra Ghosh, manager of the said Palganj Estate appointed under the Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act (VI. of 1876) and residing at Hazaribagh aforesaid."

Raja Ran Bahadur Singh was part owner of the sacred range of hills after-mentioned. But at all the material dates the management of his estate was, under the Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act, 1876, and an order pursuant thereto pronounced on December 13, 1902, and duly published on January 28, 1903, vested in the manager, Babu Krishna Chandra Ghosh. It was thereafter, and at the time of the lodging of the defence, vested in another manager, Babu Janki Nath Gupta, who had been appointed manager with effect from May 25, 1914, by order dated July 3, and published on July 5, 1914.

This second manager, as such, sold the right title and interest of Ran Bahadur Singh and the Palganj estate—in other words, sold the Paresh Nath Hill—to the compearing respondent, by sale deed dated March 9, 1918. This was the result of a compromise arrived at and approved by the Court as in the interests of both the Raja Bahadur Singh and another Raja, the Raj