A Memorable Case

While inspecting the Civil Courts at Arrah, I came across a very interesting case. Its records have been well preserved. The case was filed at Arrah on 29-4-1917, Title Suit No. 65/1917 and Title Suit No. 2/1918. The Suits were finally compromised in the Privy Council.  This case is popularly known as The Burma Case or The Dumraon Raj Case and is really a memorable one in many respects.  Legal luminaries of the country had appeared not only in the Privy Council or in the Patna High Court but also at Arrah. Out of them some were former Presidents of the Indian National Congress like Desh Bandhu C. R. Das, Pandit Moti Lal Nehru, Sri Hasan Imam and Dr. Rajendra Prasad. Besides them, those who appeared at different stages were legal stalwarts like Sir Asutosh Mukherjee, Ex-Judge of the Calcutta High Court, Sir N. N. Sircar, who later became Law Minister of the Government of India, Hon'ble Mr. S. Nivas Iyanger, the then Advocate General Madras, Sri Jafar Imam, who became Chief Justice of Patna High Court and also Judge of the Supreme Court, Sri S. C. Roy, Bar-at-Law, Calcutta High Court, who later became a Judge of the Supreme Court, Sri Mahabir Prasad, former Judge and Advocate General of the Patna High Court and many others.  The then Maharaja of Dumraon, Maharaja Keshava Prasad Singh, and his ancestors had extensive properties in the district of Arrah, now Bhojpur, and other places. Sri Jai Prakash Lal was his trusted employee and later designated as the Dewan. Power of attorney was executed in his favour by the Maharaja. The Maharaja had also purchased some properties Benami in the name of the Dewan. In the eighties of the last Century the population had risen which led to unemployment in the provinces of Uttar Pradesh (formerly United Provinces) and Bihar. The Government decided to rehabilitate some of the unemployed persons in Upper-Burma which was also a part of the British Empire. Some big landlords were invited to a meeting to consider the suggestion. Maharajas of Darbhanga, Hathwa and Bettiah declined the invitation. Sri Jai Prakash Lal attended the meeting as a representative of Dumraon Raj and also the Secretary of Indigo Planter's Association. It was decided that lands would be allotted to the landlords on nominal payment and that they would encourage their tenants to go to Upper-Burma and take up agricultural activities. Sri jai Prakash Lal and others visited Burma to acquaint themselves with the living conditions and the prospects of cultivation and reported to the Maharaja that the lands were quite suitable. After negotiation in 1896, 15,240 acres of land situated at Zeyawadi circle in Tungru in lower British Burma were taken on settlement by the Maharaja of Dumraon in the name of his Dewan, Jai Prakash Lal. For twelve years those lands were made free from rent and other benefits were also given. Tenants with their families, were taken and settled on those lands. After the death of Sri Jai Prakash Lal his son, Harihar Prasad Singh, popularly known as Hariji of Arrah whose descendants are running Kalyanpur Cement Factory, Maurya Hotel, Patna, and other establishments, claimed those properties as belonging to his late father. This was challenged by the Maharaja, Maharaja Keshava Prasad Singh, and ultimately he filed a Title Suit in Arrah Court for a declaration that the properties of Burma had been purchased from his fund and that the Dewan was his Benamidar for the Burma properties and also for some properties including a garden house in Dumraon. The suit was valued at rupees twenty lacs and a sum of rupees ten lacs was claimed as mesne profits and court-fee of rupees thirty thousand was paid thereon. It was contested by Sri Harihar Prasad Singh alias Hariji and a preliminary objection was raised that the properties were situated in Burma and, therefore, the Court at Arrah had no jurisdiction. The prayer was rejected and the matter went to the High Court in M. J. C. No. 72 of 1918 and eminent lawyers like Sir Sultan Ahmad, Sri H. L. Nandkeolyar, Sri S. M. Mallick, Dr. Rajendra Prasad and many others appeared on behalf of Hariji and Sri P. R. Das, Sri Kishan Sahay, Sri N. N. Sircar and others for the Maharaja. The revision was dismissed but the matter went to the High Court again on the question of pecuniary jurisdiction and that was also dismissed on 2-8-1918. Written statements were filed on 8-11-1918 and issues were settled on 13-1-1919. Thereafter commissions were issued for examining about fifty witnesses not only in this country but in Britain, Burma and a number of them were Europeans who were posted at Arrah at some time or the other. Those examined on commission in this country and outside were late Sir Ali Imam, Mr. P. R. Das, Raja Payare Mohan Banerjee, Maharaja of Gidhour, Sri Moti Lal Ghosh, who was editor of Amrita Bazar Patrika at that time, Sri Sharfuddin, Ex-Judge of Calcutta High Court and some European Collectors and other Officers who were posted at Arrah from time to time. Dr. Sachchidanand Sinha also appeared as a witness in this case on 12-6-1920. The Maharaja fell ill, in course of the trial, and he was also examined by the Court in his Palace at Dumraon on 9-8-1920.  Mr. R. L. Ross, who later became a Judge of the Patna High Court, joined Arrah as District Judge on 2-1-1920 and took up the case the same day and the hearing continued from day to day and a number of witnesses were also examined and cross-examined on behalf of plaintiff-Maharaja and Hariji and the documents exhibited on behalf of the plaintiff numbered 1844 and on behalf of the defendants z/2289. Evidence was closed on 20-8-1920 and arguments were taken up on 28-8-1920. Sri N. N. Sircar started the arguments for Hariji; Pandit Moti Lal Nehru argued for defendant No. 2, Sri Chandreshwar Prasad Sinha alias Lal Babu, minor son of Hariji, Sri C. R. Das took up the argument on behalf of the Maharaja on 16-9-1920 which continued up to 10-10-1920 and the judgment was reserved on that date. Parties were informed on 28-10-1920 that the judgment Would be delivered on 1-11-1920 and it was actually delivered on that date. The suit was decreed in favour of the Maharaja and the hand written judgment runs to 160 pages, though order-sheets are all typed. It was written by hand probably to avoid leakage before the actual delivery of the judgment. It is really creditable that the Judge gave the judgment in such a short time after going through voluminous records and examining all complicated question of facts and law. It was held that the Maharaja was the real owner of the properties of Dumraon and Burma and Sri Jai Prakash Lal, his Dewan, was Benamidar. The decree shows that a cost of Rs. 12,377/- was awarded to the Maharaja and the Suit properties were to be conveyed to the Maharaja and possession to be delivered to him and mesne profits were to be ascertained up to the year 1913. Pandit Moti Lal Nehru and Sri C. R. Das stayed at Arrah for a number of days for the argument along with their juniors. Immediately after the judgment execution proceedings were started by the Maharaja on 30-3-1922 and Sri Rai Jung Bahadur was appointed as a pleader Commissioner who was later removed and two retired District Judges from West Bengal, namely, Rai Bahadur Narendra Krishna Dutta and Rai Bahadur Sharda Prasad Sen were appointed as receivers. Only one of them accepted that assignment. The matter was taken to the Patna High Court by Sri Harihar Prasad Singh alias Hariji in F. A. No. 14 of 1921 (reported in AIR 1925 Patna 68) and there also eminent counsel appeared for the parties. Sarvasri Hasan Imam, P. C. Manuk, A. Sen, B. B. Lal, Jafar Imam, S. N. Palit, Parmeshwar Dayal, Mahabir Prasad and Awadh Bihari Sharan appeared for the appellants and Sri Asutosh Mukherjee, Sir Sultan Ahmad, Rai Guru Sharan Prasad and Ariugrah Narain Sinha appeared for the Maharaja. The case was placed before Chief Justice Dawsan Miller, Justice Mallick and Justice Foster. It may be mentioned that Sir Asutosh Mukherjee, soon after he retired from the Bench of Calcutta High Court, joined the Bar. This was his first big brief and the argument continued for a number of days and in the midst of the argument Sir Asutosh fell ill and died at Patna. There was a full Court reference in the Patna High Court and rich tributes were paid to him, both by the Bench and the bar. Sri P. C. Manuk spoke on behalf of the Bar and Sri Shiv Saran Lall for the Vakils' Association (now Advocates' Association) to which the Chief Justice Sir Dawsan Miller suitably and feelingly replied. Sir Asutosh Mukherjee was staying in the house which was on the junction of Dak Bungalow and Exhibition Road where now a multi-storied building has come up. The last occupant was Mr. Justice B. S. Sinha. Whenever Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee and Justice Rama Prasad Mukherjee, sons of late Sir Asutosh, came to Patna they always paid a visit to the house where their father breathed his last. The appeal was allowed and the suit, which was filed by the Maharaja was dismissed. It was held by the Patna High Court that the Dewan had acquired the properties from his own funds and was not a Benamidar of the Maharaja and he had no concern with them. Patna Law Times brought out a special supplement and the judgment runs into 261 pages and it is reported in 5 Patna Law Times (Supplement). The same judgment has also been reported in AIR 1925 Patna 68. The judgment shows that the three European Judges have considered the complicated questions relating to Benami transactions and have used typical Hindi and Urdu words like Roker, Lekha, Jama Kharch, Roz Namcha, Parwana, Milkiyat, Min Janib, Madad Imdaad, Khanadari, Dehi, Darbari Kharch, Mamooli, Sherishta, Tahweel etc. etc. throughout in the judgment.  Maharaja of Dumraon went in appeal before the Privy Council. Dr. Rajendra Prasad and Sri Mahabir Prasad went to England in that case on behalf of Hariji. Sri Mahabir Prasad stayed there after the case was over and was called to the Bar. He practised for a number of years in Patna High Court and became Advocate General and also Judge but resigned after two years. He was again appointed Advocate General and continued to hold that post till he died in 1966.  Now, reverting to the case, it was taken up before a Board consisting of Lord Shaw, Lord Carson, Lord Blanesburgh, Sir John Wallis and Sir Lancelot Sanderson. Both the parties were represented by eminent counsel of Privy Council. Mr. Upjohn appeared for Hariji and Mr. De Gruyther, K. C., appeared on behalf of the Maharaja. After a few days of argument, Lord Shaw suggested that there should be a compromise and the case was adjourned for a few days and the request of the Judge was accepted by the parties. After the compromise petition was filed, Mr. Upjohn addressed the Court: —  "Now, my Lords, the parties one and all are very much indebted to Lord Shaw, in particular, for the wise and weighty words which he pronounced just a week ago which had due effect after three or four days, and also to your Lordships not only for your patience in hearing Mr. De Gruyther, but also for your kindness in facilitating this compromise, although I have a little regret of my own at being deprived of an opportunity of persuading Lord Blanesburgh on points that he put against me."  Lord Shaw replied in the following words :  "Gentlemen of the Bar, a week ago on behalf of the Board I ventured respectfully to suggest an arrangement in the interests of these competing Indian families. I omitted to make any reference, and purposely did to omit, to the mandate of wig and gown which the Indian Counsel possess. In my long experience I have found a natural disinclination to exercise that mandate to its full rigour for the reason that circumstances of distance and difficulty of communication make the position of Counsel singularly embarrassing. But in the present case two circumstances of good fortune have occurred. Both of these competing parties are in this country. The observations made last week have been communicated to them; they have met and they have themselves relieved Counsel of that delicate situation to which I have referred, and they have accomplished a settlement which we hope will be lasting and make for peace. I only part with my colleagues from the case with these two observations that we have been much impressed with the judgments of the four Judges 'of the Courts below. They have each and all addressed themselves independently and with great thoroughness to the investigation of a case of great mass and complexity. Their judgments contain careful and clear exposition and are in every case indicative of much analytical power. Indian Jurisprudence is well served by such judgments."  Replying to this Mr. De Gruyther thanked the Judges and said that the Bar in all well conducted cases had always to remember — if one might paraphrase an immortal line, "They also serve who only sit and watch". The case was also reported in the Law Journal of England :  "Economy appeals to litigants and counsel from the judicial seat are of much rarer occurrence in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council than they are, let us say, in the room where Sir Francis Newbolt reigns as Official Referee. But that strange phenomenon suddenly and unexpectedly occurred last Monday in the dingy room of the Court 'most wonderful' as Lord Atkin once described it — and Lord Shaw of Dunfermline (Scotland) was the hero who, with the courage of his race, so strongly intervened, in the case officially known as the Maharaja Bahadur Keshava Prasad Singh v. Rai Bahadur Harihar Prasad Singh and another. Name, cause and place combined to indicate leisure and longevity and those things were being peacefully fulfilled when Lord Shaw's suggestion escaped him. Mr. De Gruyther, K. C. one of the crew of twenty counsel engaged in the case, was continuing his opening speech for the appellant on that the twelfth day of the hearing. The fees were high, the refreshers satisfying and as seen from the Bar the case was a good ship, well-manned and engaged on a voyage full of golden promise for the crew."  By the aforesaid compromise Burma properties were to be retained by Hariji and Dumraon properties by the Maharaja. Thus, ended the marathon fight between two litigants involving eminent lawyers of the country. A sugar factory was also opened at Zeyawadi by Hariji and a number of persons from Bihar had been working till the last world war. It may be mentioned that late Sri Baleshwar Prasad, who later joined Indian Administrative Service after Independence also became Indian Ambassador to Burma and retired as lieutenant Governor of Delhi, was In-charge of the Mill and properties belonging to Hariji and was managing on his behalf. Wnen Japanese attacked Burma some of the Indian families left that country, some died there and some on way to India and some settled there permanently.  The lower court records, which are kept in the Record Room at Arrah, were sent to the Patna High Court during the Diamond Jubilee Celebrations held in the year 1978, They were carefully seen by the then Chief Justice of India, Mr. Justice Beg, Mr. Justice Chandrachud, Mr. Justice. Bhagwati and other Chief Justices and Judges of different High Courts, who had attended the Celebrations, besides other dignitaries. Sri Shanti Bhushan, the then Law Minister, was also one of them. They were very much interested to see the name of legal stalwarts and national leaders in the records of the case.  I have suggested to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court that steps may be taken for the preservation of the records of the case as it is a monumental piece of judicial dispensation and fit to be kept in some National Museum for all concerned to seek light, inspiration and guidance from the case.  The role of Judiciary and in particular of the Judges of the Privy Council in the disposal of the civil case is really laudable. We know that civil litigations have sometimes protracted for generations causing financial ruination of the litigants. Many victims of such cases become physical and mental wrecks. This case has demonstrated the humane approach of the Judges, the co-operative role of the lawyers and depth of understanding and reasonableness of the litigants. At a time when our judicial system is nearly breaking down due to sheer weight of arrears, the Arrah case should be an example for the Judges, the awyers and the parties. At all stages of the trial and appeal the Judges handled the case with deep sense of urgency, exemplary thoroughness and tremendous speed. Even though most of the bulky documents were in Hindi and Urdu and the Judges were not well versed with these languages, they gleaned through them with great pains, sifted the facts and evidence and decided the case within a record time. The intervention of the Judges of the Privy Council in suggesting to the parties to compromise the case speaks eloquently of their judicial response having a sharp humane angle. One cannot but admire the patience and thoroughness with which such busy and eminent lawyers kept pace with the speed as well as demands of the Judge. And finally, the parties saw wisdom in a compromise and not an endless and self destroying litigation. Thus ended the case happily for the two families and restored their time old relations due to timely intervention of the Privy Council, the co-operation extended by eminent lawyers and the wisdom of the parties. Thus, it is a memorable case in all respects.

Author Name: Hon’ble Justice Prem Shankar Sahay