1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendants Nos. 1 to 3in an action commenced by the plaintiff-respondent for declaration of title toand recovery of possession of 1/5th share of certain immoveable property. Theplaintiff alleges that the property in question belonged to his maternalgrandfather, Gobardhone Mondal. Gobardhone had two wives, Gobinda andDurgamoni. Gobinda had three daughters, Raimoni, Brojomoni and Mundakini. Theplaintiff is the son of Raimoni. The first three defendants are the sons ofMundakini and the 4th defendant is the son of Brojomoni. It appears that whenin 1877, the Settlement proceedings took place under Regulation III of 1872,the defendant No. 1, Kangal Mondal, got himself recorded as the proprietor ofthese lands. The plaintiff alleges that at that time Durgamoni, the second wifeof Gobardhone, was entitled to be registered as proprietor and that by reasonof collusion between Durgamoni and Kangal Mondal the latter was recorded, asproprietor. He therefore, seeks for declaration that this entry in the recordis not binding upon him and that he is entitled to recover possession of hisshare in the property. The defendants pleaded in bar section 25 of Regulation111 of 1872, and contended that the entry in the Record of Rights wasconclusive proof that the property in question belonged to defendant No. 1.

2. The Court of first instance gave effect to thisobjection. Upon appeal, the Deputy Commissioner has held that the present caseis not barred by reason of the provisions of section 25 of Regulation III of1872 and he has remanded the case to be tried on the merits.

3. Against this order, the defendants have appealed to thisCourt and on their behalf it has been urged that the suit is barred undersection 25 of Regulation III of 1872.

4. We are of opinion that this contention is unfounded.Section 9 of Regulation III of 1872 provides that "the Lieutenant-Governormay, from time to time, by notification in the Calcutta Gazette, declare that aSettlement shall be made of the whole or any part of the Sonthal Perganas forthe purpose of ascertaining and recording the various interests and rights inthe lands." Section 12 then provides that "the Settlement Officersshall have power to inquire into, to decide and to record the rights of thezamindars and other proprietors, the rights of the tenants or raiyats, therights of the Manjhees or other headmen as against both the proprietors and thetenants, and also any other landed rights to which by the law or custom of thecountry or of any tribe, any person may have legal of equitable claim."Section 11 then specifies a bar to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court incertain oases and lays down that "except as provided in section 25, nosuit shall lie in any Civil Court regarding any matter decided by anySettlement Court under these rules; but the decisions and orders of theSettlement Courts made under these rules, regarding the interests and rightsabove mentioned shall have the force of a decree of Court." Section 25 towhich reference is thus made in section 11 lays down that "after a periodof a year from the date of the publication of the Record of Rights of anyvillage, such record shall be conclusive proof of the rights and custom thereinrecorded, other than the rights mentioned in the latter part of this section,except so far as concerns entries in such record regarding which objections byparties interested may still be pending." It is unnecessary to refer tothe litter part of section 25 because it is conceded that no suit was broughtwithin three years to contest the decision of the Settlement Officer.

5. It is argued by the learned Vakil for the appellants thatthe effect of section 25 real with section 11 is to give to the decision of theSettlement Officer the effect of a judgment in rem and that it is binding notonly as between the present defendants and Durgamoni but also between thepresent defendants and the whole world.

6. We are of opinion that this contention is not wellfounded, Section 9, when it provides that a Settlement shall be ordered forascertaining and recording the various interests and lights in the lands,contemplates the ascertainment and record of existing interest and rights.Section 11, when it says that the decision of the Settlement Officer shall havethe force of a decree of Court, evidently means that it shall have the force ofa decree of Court as between parties in existence at the time when the order ofthe Settlement Officer is made.

7. Now it is conceded before us that the prefect plaintiff,at the time when the Settlement took place in 1817, had no interest whatsoeverin this property. He was, no doubt, a possible reversioner, in other words ifhe survived his mother and grandmother, he would be entitled to a share in theproperty but it is unquestionable that as a reversioner at that time hisinterest was no more than contingent. It is, therefore, impossible to resistthe conclusion that, as he does not claim through Durgamoni, he cannot in anyway he bound by the order of the Settlement Officer which has the force of adecree as between the present defendants and Durgamoni, but which, ifcollusive, does not find the plaintiff. The defendant has no higher right thanhe would have, if he had obtained a decree in the Civil Court against the widowand if such decree had been secured by collusion, it would not in any wayprejudice the reversioner. We must hold accordingly that the view taken by theDeputy Commissioner is correct and his order ought not to be disturbed.

8. The appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs.

9. We assess the hearing fee at two gold mohurs.

.

Kangal Chandra Mandalvs. Madhu Sudan Mandal(04.05.1905 - CALHC)