Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Harries, Bachawat
SURENDRA NARAYAN DEB - Appellant
Versus
BHAIRABENDRA NARAYAN DEB - Respondent
Civil Rule 26 Of 1949
Decided On : FEBRUARY 27, 1950
SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT - SECTION 42 - DECLARATORY SUITS - MAINTAINABILITY - COURT OF WARDS - POSSESSION - STAKEHOLDER - WARD - SUIT FOR POSSESSION - INJUNCTION - JURISDICTION.
Fact of the Case:
Two suits were filed by petitioners claiming ownership of the Bijni Raj estate. The estate was under the management of the Court of Wards, which was in possession as a stakeholder. The suits were purely declaratory, seeking a declaration of the plaintiffs' title to the estate. The defendants contended that the suits were not maintainable under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, as the plaintiffs could have sought further relief, such as possession of the estate.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suits were not maintainable under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The court found that the Court of Wards was not in possession as a stakeholder, but rather as a manager of the estate for the ward, Bhairabendra. As such, a claim for possession could be made against Bhairabendra through the Court of Wards. The court also found that the existence of an injunction restraining the Court of Wards from giving possession of the estate to Bhairabendra did not bar a suit for possession, as the injunction would cease to have effect if it was established that the property belonged to a third person.
Issues: 1. Whether the suits were maintainable under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. 2. Whether the Court of Wards was in possession as a stakeholder. 3. Whether a claim for possession could be made against Bhairabendra through the Court of Wards. 4. Whether the existence of an injunction restraining the Court of Wards from giving possession of the estate to Bhairabendra barred a suit for possession.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act bars a suit for a mere declaration where the plaintiff is able to seek further relief. 2. The Court of Wards was not in possession as a stakeholder, but rather as a manager of the estate for the ward, Bhairabendra. 3. A claim for possession could be made against Bhairabendra through the Court of Wards. 4. The existence of an injunction restraining the Court of Wards from giving possession of the estate to Bhairabendra did not bar a suit for possession, as the injunction would cease to have effect if it was established that the property belonged to a third person.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed, and the rule was discharged with costs.
( 1 ) THESE are two petitions for revision of orders made by the learned Subordinate Judge of the First Court of 24-Parganas on 29th September 1948. By these orders the learned Subordinate Judge held that two suits filed by the petitioners were not maintainable by reason of Section 42, Specific Relief Act.
( 2 ) THE petitioners were related--one being the uncle of the other. Each of the petitioners had brought a suit claiming that the Bijni Raj which owned extensive zamindary property in Assam and other properties in Calcutta and Benaras, belonged to them. One based his claim on lineal primogeniture and the other on the rule of ordinary primogeniture. In both the suits two defendants were impleaded, namely, Kumar Bhairabendra Narayan Deb, the present holder of the Raj as defendant 1 and the same Bhairabendra represented by the Manager of the Bijni Raj Wards Estate, as defendant 2.
( 3 ) TO appreciate the points at issue it will be necessary shortly to set out the history of litigation relating to this estate. The litigation actually started soon after March 1883 when the then holder of the Raj, Raja Kumud Narayan Bhup died. The Raja left surviving him two widows--Rani Abhoyeswari and Rani Siddheswari--and these two Ranis litigated. After the death of Rani Abhoyeswari Raja Jogendra Narayan Bhup, a brother's son of Raja Kumud Narayan, became the holder of the Raj. Raja Jogendra Narayan Deb, however, became insane and the Court of Wards took over the management of the estate in December 1918. It is to be observed that litigation went on relating to this estate and eventually the dispute was decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council who pronounced judgment on 16th February 1942.
( 4 ) IN order to put an end to this dispute relating to this Raj the Assam Government in the year 1931 enacted the Rijni Succession Act (Assam Act II [2] of 1931) which came to be considered in the Privy Council case which brought one stage of this litigation to a close. This Act declared that the then holder Raja Jogendra Narayan, was the owner of the estate and provided that the next holder of the estate would be Bhairabendra Narayan Deb, defendant 1 in the present suits Raja Jogendra Narayan whose estate was still being managed by the Court of Wards died on 18th June 1937 whereupon the Assam Government by a notification in the gazette declared that Kumar Bhairabendra Narayan Deb, defendant 1 in these suits had become the proprietor of the Bijni Raj. The Court of Wards continued in the management of the estate ostensibly for the purposes of paying off certain debts and expenses incurred during their management of the estate for Raja Jogendra Narayau.
( 5 ) THE two suits previously referred to which were brought by the plaintiffs were filed in the year 1910 and in each of the suits there is a prayer for a declaration that the plaintiff of that suit is entitled to the Bijni Raj. Both the plaintiffs in their respective plaints have made it clear that the decision of the Judicial Committee in the earlier suit was not binding upon them. Both the suits are purely declaratory suits and a court-fee of Rs. 20 was paid in respect of each of them. The suits are valued for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 92. 000,00 and Rs. 89,60,991.
( 6 ) DURING the pendency of these suits the Court of Wards on 1st October 1944, released the estate in favour of defendant 1 Raja Bhairabendra Narayan. Shortly after the estate had been released, Bhairabendra, defendant 1 in the suits, raised a preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of each of these suits. It was contended on his behalf that Section 42, Specific Relief Act, was a bar to each of the suits and eventually this Court directed the trial Court to decide this preliminary issue before proceeding further with the case.
( 7 ) THE preliminary issue was raised in two issues which had been framed by the lower Court: issue 7 : Can this suit proceed as framed ? Is it maintainable in view o
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
