9911796707
TMI Blog1934 (8) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record. The heirs or legal representatives of one are represented by the plaintiffs in the action, and the heirs or legal representatives of the other are represented by the defendants in the action. The record stood in the names of Sajjad and Zohad, the two brothers, and the record as it now stands in the form in which I have stated neither supports the plaintiffs' case nor that of the defendants. 2. It appears however that the plaintiffs being the legal representatives of Zohad (the brother who died last), claimed to have the exclusive rights as mutwallis. The two brothers, I should have stated, were entered in the record as the sixteen annas patnidars and it will be seen from what I have stated that the contesting parties claimed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioners and the advocate on behalf of the respondents. I have stated how the record stood at the final publication and the matter stands in the same way at this moment. 4. Whether suo motu or by reason of a petition made by the plaintiffs, the Settlement Officer proceeded to exercise his jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Regulation. He proceeded to inquire into the correctness of the record and he was incidentally asked to revise it. Now, it is quite clear that the Settlement Officer, when asked by the plaintiffs in this action to enter their names as mutwallis in the Record of Rights and revise it to that extent, came to the conclusion that it raised a difficult question of Mahomedan law and succession and therefore considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (a), (b) and (c) of that section. 6. Then Section 5-A, makes an exception to this extent: that during the settlement if it appears to be expedient that the suit or any issue should be tried by a Civil Court, the suit may be so tried. Then we come to Section 2, the most important section which is material for the purposes of this case, which provides: Except as provided in Section 25-A, no suit shall lie in any civil Court regarding any matter decided by any Settlement Court under these rules. The section then goes on to provide that the decisions as also the orders of the Settlement Officers under the rules shall have the force of a decree. Now, Section 25-A is a section which provides an exception to Section 11 and is to the effec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Civil Court as regards that would have been prohibited. Now, it is to be noted in particular that what Section 11 prohibits is a suit regarding any matter decided by any Settlement Court. 9. The exception in Section 25-A which gives a power to certain persons to question the decision of Settlement Officer uses wider words: to contest the finding or record of the Settlement Officer. Now, although it has been pointed out in numerous cases, of which reference need only be made to the decision in Balkrishna Udayar v. Vasudeva Aiyar 1917 PC 71, that this Court in the exercise of revisional powers has no jurisdiction to interfere on a question of law or a question of fact, their Lordships of the Privy Council have been careful to point o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e interest had merged or not. Without deciding that question it was impossible for him to say that at least the case in respect of Tauji No. 111 did not come within Section 25-A of the Regulation. I have come to the conclusion at which I have arrived on a plain construction of Section 11 of the Regulation. 12. But to repeat and to make the matter a little clearer, the case as regards Tauji No. 111 stands on a different footing, because I have already said it was alleged that the plaintiffs were the proprietors and therefore in any event their case might come under Section 25-A if they established their contention. I cannot part with this case without making some comment upon the most disgraceful state of affairs which was disclosed. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not well. Put up on the 29th June. I should have stated that on the 28th the Court was closed on account of Census. On the 29th of June to which date the learned Judge had adjourned the case on the 26th June the order is: Parties represented. I am busy with other work. On the 3rd July the issues were framed. On 18th July 1931, there comes one of these readily accepted petitions by both parties for time. So the matter goes on as I have said till (on an order of the Court on 12th September 1931) the learned Judge comes to his decision on that matter on 28th February 1933. 15. It would appear that in the Santal Parganas the administration of Civil Justice is a secondary consideration and the order sheet in the case to my mind supports th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
