(Kumar) Jogendra Narain Sinha and Others vs Kali Kinkar Sinha

Das, J.—This application is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, dated the 31st August 1926, by which he has held that his Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. I have great objection to the Court trying a case piecemeal and I should decline to interfere with the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge on the ground that the petitioners will have ample opportunity to contest the order hereafter. But it is not necessary for me to throw out the application on this ground as I am of opinion that the order of the learned Subordinate Judge is right and that this application should fail or merits.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that Section 5 of Regulation 3 of 1872 bars the jurisdiction of the civil Courts inasmuch as a settlement is proceeding in regard to the disputed lands. If the suit of the plaintiff be considered as a suit for land then obviously the civil Court has no jurisdiction. But in my opinion the suit is purely an administration suit and can not be considered a suit for land.

The learned Counsel draws my attention to the allegations in the 12th, 23rd and 27th paragraphs of the plaint and also to prayer Ka. So far as the 12th paragraph of the plaint is concerned the plaintiff alleges that he has become one of the owners of the properties of the Maheshpur estate under the will of Kumar Indra Narain Singh and he claims that he is entitled to have his rights determined over them. But this allegation is followed by the allegation that

he has the fullest right to sea whether or not the said estate is being properly looked after and managed by the defendants as executors and in case of improper management to take steps to look after and manage them properly so that his own rights may be protected and properly looked after.

These allegations in my opinion do not raise a question of title to the property in dispute. This is an allegation necessary for him to make to enable him to maintain an administration suit. A party having no interest cannot maintain an administration suit and it is necessary for the plaintiff to show that he has sufficient interest in the estate to enable him to maintain a suit against the executors. The will of Indra Narain Singh is part of the plaint and there can be no doubt as to the interest of the plaintiff in the Maheshpure state. There can be no dispute in regard to his interest in the estate. But there is dispute as to the right of management of the estate.

In the 23rd paragraph of the plaint the plaintiff alleges that the duty of managing the estate and working under the terms of the will cannot be in the hands of the defendants as executors of the same.

It is settled law that a suit for the removal of the executors and for vesting the estate in a receiver pending the disposal of the suit is not a suit for land. In the 27th paragraph of the plaint the plaintiff states that he has a 4-annas share in the properties in suit.

As I have said before this is a necessary allegation to show his interest to maintain an administration suit. Prayer Ka merely asks the Court to determine the rights of the parties; but considering the whole plaint it is quite clear that such determination is required for the purpose of administration.

I am satisfied that the suit cannot be regarded as a suit for land and I must dismiss the application with costs.

Adami, J.

I agree.