Back
1930 Supreme(SC) 78
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD ATKIN, LORD MACMILLAN, AND SIR JOHN WALLIS.
BAGESWARI CHARAN SINGH - Appellant
Versus
KUMAR KAMAKHYA NARAIN SINGH - Respondents
On Appeal from the High Court at Patna.
Decided On : Oct. 21, 1930.
Solicitors for appellant: Watkins & Hunter.
Solicitor for respondent: Solicitor, India Office.
The statutory presumption of correctness of entries in the record-of-rights shifts the burden of proof to the challenger. Additionally, the government's remission of land revenue does not extinguish a zamindar's proprietary rights or their ownership of subjacent minerals.
Headnote:(A) Tenancy Act - Section 84, sub-sections 2 and 3 - Presumption of correctness of entries in the record-of-rights - The burden of proving that an entry in the record-of-rights is incorrect lies upon the party challenging such entry.
(B) Zamindari and Jagirdari - Ownership of minerals - In a legal relationship between a zamindar and a jagirdar, the zamindar is regarded as the owner of the minerals underlying the land.
(C) Proprietary Rights - Remission of land revenue - A remission of land revenue by the Government does not affect the proprietary rights of the zamindar or the right to claim ownership of minerals in the land.
Facts of the case:
The respondent, a zamindar, sought a declaration that the appellants had no right to the minerals underlying certain villages. The record-of-rights entered the appellants' tenure as a jagir held under the zamindar at an annual rent. The appellants contended that they were independent proprietors who had acquired the land by force or that certain villages were revenue-free properties acquired independently and never formed part of the zamindari.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellants failed to rebut the statutory presumption of correctness of the record-of-rights. The fact that the appellants belonged to a senior branch of the family was insufficient to prove they held the land independently of the zamindar. Regarding the villages claimed as revenue-free, evidence showed they were previously assessed as part of the zamindari, and a subsequent remission of revenue did not alter the proprietary status.
Issues: Whether the entry in the record-of-rights was correctly rebutted to establish independent ownership and whether the remission of land revenue by the Government extinguished the zamindar's proprietary rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The statutory presumption under the Tenancy Act shifts the burden of proof to the party challenging the record. Lineage alone does not rebut the presumption that lands held within a zamindari are maintenance grants. Furthermore, the Government's remission of revenue is a fiscal matter and does not divest a zamindar of proprietary rights or the ownership of subjacent minerals.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
property law
-
land tenure
- zamindari and jagirdari
- mineral rights
-
land tenure
-
practice and procedure
-
evidence
- statutory presumptions
- burden of proof
-
evidence
-
administrative law
-
revenue law
- revenue remission
-
revenue law
Judgement
Law Rep. 58 Ind. App. 9 ( 1930- 1931) Bageswari C haran Singh V. Kumar Kamakhya Narain Singh 161
Appeal (No. 47 of 1928) from a decree of the High Court (January 21, 1927) reversing a decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Hazaribagh (December 22, 1922).
The plaintiff-respondent, who was zamindar of the Ramgarh estate, instituted a suit against the appellant (who was defendant No. 10),his grandfather Jado Charan Singh (defendant No. 1, since deceased), and other members of the appellants family. The plaint claimed a declaration that the defendants had no right to the minerals underlying villages mentioned therein, an injunction, and further relief. The respondents case was that the villages in question constituted a rent-paying jagir held by the defendants under a grant from one of the respondents ancestors. In the record-of-rights made in 1915 under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, the tenure had been so recorded. The appellant by his statement of defence denied that the villages were a part of the respondents zamindari and contended that they had been acquired by his ancestor by force of arms and that he was proprietor and entitled to the underlying minerals. He alleged that his annual payments to the zamindar were not rent, but revenue payable through the zamindar to Government in respect of all the villages except Dharguli and Chalkusa ; as to those two villages, which were situated in the Rampur pargana, he alleged that after the decennial settlement the Government remitted the revenue and constituted them lakhiraj.
A pedigree, from which it appears that the appellant was of the senior, and the zamindar of the junior branch of the same family is printed in the present judgment; the facts as to the remission of revenue also are there stated.
Both Courts in India found that all the villages in suit were part of the estate as settled at the decennial settlement.
The trial judge found on the evidence that the presumption under s. 84,-sub-s. 2, of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, that the entry in the record-of-rights, was correct, had been rebutted; accordingly he dismissed the suit.
Upon appeal the decision was reversed and a decree was made as prayed. Mullick J. (with whose judgment Sahay J. agreed) found that the defendants had failed to rebut the presumption arising under the entry in the record-of-rights, and that the plaintiff had established that the entry was correct; he held therefore that the defendants tenure was a khorposh jagirdari at an annual rental. He was of opinion that the defendants had not shown that they were independent talukdars.
1930. July 16, 18, 21, 22. De Gruyther K.C. and Dube for the appellant.
Upjohn K.C, L. P. E. Pugh, and Wallach for the respondent.
Oct. 21. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by
SIR JOHN WALLIS. In this, as in the case of Charu Chandra Ghose v. Kumar Kamakhya Narain Singh (Infra, p. 17.), in which judgment has just been delivered, the main issue is as to the correctness of an entry in the khewat, or record-of-rights, of the Ramgarh zamindari prepared under the provisions of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. Sect. 84, sub-s. 3, of that Act imposes on parties challenging such an entry the burden of proving by evidence that it is incorrect.
The suit is brought on behalf of the minor Raja of Ramgarh for a declaration that the defendants have no right to the minerals in the villages held by them and for an injunction and damages. The claim for
Law Rep. 58 Ind. App. 9 ( 1930- 1931) Bageswari C haran Singh V. Kumar Kamakhya Narain Singh 162
damages has been withdrawn. The defendants denied that they derived title from the plaintiff or his predecessors in title, and alleged that they themselves were the owners of the villages and of the subjacent minerals.
In the khewat the defendants tenure is entered as jagir held under the Raja of Ramgarh resumable after the family of Fateh Singh, the supposed grantee, becomes extinct without any heirs being left
