SUKHDEV SINGH versus MAHARAJA BAHADUR OF GIDHAUR

Citation: [1951] 1 S.C.R. 534 · Decided: 02-05-1951 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BIJAN KUMAR MUKHERJEA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1951 
May2 
534 
1951 
Mayl, 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
SUKHDEV SINGH 
II. 
MAHARAJA BAHADUR OF GIDHAUR 
[ SA1Ym FAzL ALI, MuKHEERJEA and 
CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR JJ.J 
[1951] 
Ghatwali tenures-Nature and incidents-Gova-nment ghatwalis 
and Zemindary ghatwalis-Difference-Zemindar' s right to sub-soil 
minerals-District Gazetteers-Evidentiary value. 
Though there are several instances in which Government ghat4 
walis were included in the zemindary of other persons, yet wh.cro 
no clear evidence is forthcoming as to the true character of a ghat4 
wali, the fact that the tenure is included within a zamindary and 
is covered by the jama assessed 
upon it should turn the scale in 
favour of the party who alleges that it is a tenure which is de-
pendent upon the zemindary. 
The mere fact that the ghatwali was shown to be under the 
Collector cannot alter the character of the ghatwali, i.e., if it Was 
a zemindary ghatwali, it could not become a Government ghanvali 
merely because it was stated to be under the Collector. 
A zemindar is presumed to be the owner of underground rights 
in the tenancies created by him in the absence of evidence that he 
ever parted with them. 
A statement in the District Gazetteer is not necessarily conclusive, 
but the Gazetteer is an official document of some value, as it is 
compiled by experienced officials with great care after obtaining the 
facts from official records, 
(History and incidents of ghatwali tenures discussed). 
C1VIL APPELLATE Juruso1CTI0N. Civu. Appeal No. 29 
of 1950. 
Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated the 
10th October, 1945, of the High Court of Judicature 
at Patna (Manohar Lal and Das JJ.) in Appeal No. 64 
of 1942 arising out of decree dated the 28th February, 
1942, of the 
Subordinate 
Judge at Monghyr in Suit 
No. 10 of 1941. 
Amarendra Nath Sinha (Samarendra Nath Mukherjee, 
with him) for the appellants. 
Lal Narain Sinha (R. C. Prasad, with him) for the 
respondent. 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
535 
1951· May 2. The judgment of the Court was deli-
vered by 
FAZL Au J.-This is an appeal from a judgment and 
decree of the High Court 
of Judicature at 
Patna, 
affirming a judgment and decree of the Subordinate 
Judge of Monghyr in a title suit brought by the 
plaintiff-respondent. 
The plaintiff, the Maharaja of Gidhaur, who has 
succeeded in both the courts below, is the proprietor of 
an impartible 
estate 
known as 
Gidhaur raj 
in the 
district of Monghyr. 
The ancestors of the defendants 
1st party originally held a 4 annas share in a ghatwali 
tenure known as Mahal Dumri Nisf Katauna T. No. 
325, and subsequently 
by private partition 
they were 
allotted mouza Dumri 
with its 
47 
tolas 
which are 
detailed in ·schedule I of the plaint. In execution of a 
mortgage decree obtained by one Chethru Rai against 
the ancestors of defendants 1st party, their interest, to 
which reference has been made, was purchased by the 
Maharaja of 
Gidhaur in 
the name 
of one 
of his 
employees, and the latter took delivery of possession of 
the property on the 
19th April, 1904. 
On the 13th 
August, 1903, the ancestors of the defendants 1st party 
filed an application for setting aside the sale which was 
dismissed by the executing court and the appeal from 
the order of the executing court was dismissed by the 
High Court as 
well as by the 
Privy . Council. After 
certain disputes in the criminal courts, the defendants 
second party alleging 
themselves to be the lessees of 
the defendants first party, 
obtained a mining license 
in 1937 
from 
the 
sub-divisional 
officer of 
Jamui, 
and the District 
Magistrate apprehending a breach of 
the peace, 
started 
proceedings 
under section 
144 of 
the Criminal Procedure Code, which ended in favour 
of the defendants first and second parties and against 
the plaintiff. 
The plaintiff's case is that, emboldened by the order 
in the proceedings under section 
144, the defendants 
started working mines in the tolas mentioned in sche-
dule II of 
the 
plaint and extracted a 
considerable 
1951) 
<Jukhdev Singh 
v. 
Mahara}a 
Bahadurof 
Gidhaur 
Faz/ A/IT. 
1951 
Sll/ohdev Singh 
v. 
Malrarqja 
Bahadurof 
Gidhaur. 
Faz/ A.Ii J, 
536 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1951] 
9ua~tity of mica and hence he was compelled to 
mst1tute the present suit. 
In this suit, after reciting 
the facts to which reference has been made he prayed 
for a declaration of the sub-soil rights with regard to 
the entire Mahal Durnri and for recovery of po

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