RADHA SUNDAR DUTTA versus MOHD. JAHADUR RAHIM AND OTHERS

Citation: [1959] 1 S.C.R. 1309 · Decided: 18-09-1958 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
• 
.. 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1309 
.. 
suits against :e Central Board in respect of their acts 
r9ss 
as well as to suits for any.relief in respect of any 5 .. ,-H Kh 
. 
. 
. 
l 
ira;u~ 
aq 
an 
.waqf. It 1s not demed that 'the present smt wou d 
& Others 
attract the provisions of s. 53 if the argument that 
v. 
the Darga and the offerings are not notified is rejected. The Sunni Central 
The rnsult is that the suit is not maintainabl~ as a 
Board 01 Waqf, 
result of the appellant's failure to comply with the u. P. & Others 
requirements of s. 53. 
We would accordingly con- Gajendragadkar J. 
firm the finding of the High Court that the appellaints' 
suit is barred by time under s. 5(2) and is also not 
maintainable in view of the fact that the appellants 
have not given the requisite notice under s. 53 of 
the Act. 
The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed 
w,i.th costs. 
· 
Appeal dismissed .. 
• 
RADHA SUNDAR DUTTA 
v . • 
MOHD. JAHADUR RAHIM AND OTHERS 
(VENKATARAMA AIY.AR, G.AJENDRAGADK.AR 
and A. K. SARKAR JJ.) 
Grant-Construction-Patni 
settlement-Chaukidari 
Chakaran 
lands-Resumption and transfer to Zamindar-Grant of the lands by 
the Zaminditr on Patni to person who held the village in Patni settle-
~ 
ment-Distinct Patni-Sale of lands for arrears of revenue-V.ali-
. dity-Bmgal Patni Taluks Regulation, I8I9 (Ben. Regulation 
VIII. of I8I9), ss. 8, I4-Village Chaukidari Act, I870 (Ben. VI 
of I870~, SS. 48, 50, 5I. 
The lands in question are situate in lot Ahiyapur which is 
one of the viJlages forming part of the permaneptly settled 
estate of Burdwan and had been set apart as Chaukidari 
Chakar~n lands to be held by the Chaukidars for rendering 
service in the village as watchmen. At the time of the perma-
nent settlement the income fro1n these lands was not taken into 
account in fixing the jama payable on the estate. Some time 
before the enactment of the Bengal Patni Taluks ~egulation,, 
1819, the e~tire village of Ahiyapur was _granted by the then 
• 
September L8. 
• 
• 
• 
• 
1310 
~UPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1959] 
z958 
Zamindar of Burdwan, to the 
predecessor~in-title of 
the 
defendants on l'alni settlement. In 1870 the \"1llage Chaukidari 
R•dha S11ndar 
Act came into force and actVig tfncler the prO\·isions of that Act 
Dutta 
the Government put an en<l to the services of the Chaukidars, 
v. 
resum!'d the lands an<l imposed an assessment thereon, and, 
Mohd. jahadur subject lo it. transferred the lands to the Zamindar. On 
Rahim 
June 3t 1899, the Zamin<lar granted the suit lands on l'al11i0 to the 
predecessors-in-title of the defendants \vho \••ere the then holders 
of the village in Palni. In proceedings taken by the Zamindar 
under the provisions of the Bengal Palni Taluks l~egulation, 
1819, the suit lands were brought to sale for arrears of rent and 
purchased by him. 
On February 13, 1941, the Zamindar sold 
the lands to the appellant who sued to recover possession thereof 
from the defendants. The dcienclants resisted the suit on the 
ground; inter alia, that the effect of the grant of the Chaukidari 
Chakaran lands on June 3, 1899, was to make them part and 
parcel of the Patni settlement of the village of Ahiyapur and 
that, in consequence, the sale of those lands, apart from t.Pe 
village of Ahiyapur, was bad as being a sale of a portion of the 
Patni. 
• 
• 
H cld, that when the Zamindar made a grant of the 
Chaukidari Chakaran lands which formed part of a village 
which had previously been settled in Patni, it was open to the 
parties to agree that those lancls should form a 1iew and distinct 
Patni and the result of such an agreement would be that while t5e 
grantee would hold those lancls in Patni right, that is to say, that 
the tenure would be permanent, heritable ancl alienable, so far 
as his liability to pay jama a11cl the corresponding right of the 
Zamindar lo sell it under the l~egulation if there was a default 
in the payment thereof were concerned, the new grant would be 
a distinct l'auii, ifldependenl of the original l'at11i. 
Held, further, that construing the grant dated June 3, 1899, 
as a \\·hole, the intention of the parties as expressed therein was 
that the Chaukidari Chakaran lands were to be treated as a 
distinct l'al"i and that, therefore, the sale of the lands for 
arrears of rent \vas vali<l. 
~IYIL APPELl,ATE .JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal N"o. 
108 of 1954. 
Appeal from the 
judgment and 
decree dated 
:\larch 21, 1952, of the Calcutta 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.