Judgement

Appeal by special leave from a decree of the High Court (October 25, 1920) reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge, first class, of Ludhiana.

The appellant brought a suit for a declaration that he was a Mohal Rajput, and that entries in the revenue papers showing his caste as Mohal Khayyat were incorrect. The trial judge made a decree as prayed, but that decree was reversed by the High Court (Chevis and Scott-Smith JJ.) upon appeal and the suit dismissed.

8 Law. Rep. 52 Ind. App. 201 ( 1924- 1925) Ghulam Rasul Khan V. Secretary of State for India in C ouncil

The facts and the grounds of the decision of the High Court appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

1925. Feb. 9, 10. De Gruyther K.C. and Parikh for the appellant.

Dunne K.C. and Kenworthy Brown for the respondent.

1925. March 12. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

LORD CARSON. The (plaintiff) appellant is a resident in the District of Ludhiana of the Punjab and is the owner of "culturable lands" in that district. In or about the year 1912 he bought certain other lands and applied for mutation of names. The Deputy Commissioner and, on appeal, the Financial Commissioner of the Punjab, on May 3, 1913, refused the application on the ground that the alienation in question was against the policy of the Punjab Alienation of Lands Act (No. XIII. of 1900).

That Act by s. 3 enacts as follows "3.—(1.) A person who desires to make a permanent alienation of his land shall be at liberty to make such alienation where—

(a) The alienor is not a member of an agricultural tribe; or

(c) The alienor is a member of an agricultural tribe and the alienee is a member of the same tribe or of a tribe in the same group.

“(2.) Except in the cases provided for in sub-section (1.), a permanent alienation of land shall not take effect as such unless and until sanction is given thereto by a Deputy Commissioner.

"(3.) The Deputy Commissioner shall enquire into the circumstances of the alienation and shall have discretion to grant or refuse the sanction required by sub-section (2.)."

The grounds of the decision both of the Deputy Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner were that the plaintiff was described in the revenue records as "Khayyat Mohal," that that tribe was not one of the notified agricultural tribes of the Ludhiana District, nor was the Mohal tribe to which it corresponded. The plaintiff alleged that although described in the revenue record of the land belonging to him as "Mohal Khayyat" he was nevertheless a Rajput and a member of an agricultural tribe. It was admitted that if he was a Rajput he was entitled to become the alienee of the property, as Rajputs were an agricultural tribe and were so declared in the Punjab Gazette of April 21, 1904.

The plaintiff then instituted this suit in the Court of the District Judge of Ludhiana against the respondent and prayed for a declaratory decree to the effect that he was a Mohal Rajput and that all the entries in the revenue papers showing his caste as "Mohal Khayyat" were incorrect. The parties went to trial on one issue only—namely, "Is the plaintiff a Rajput?"

On June 24, 1915, the Subordinate Judge, after hearing a number of witnesses and examining a number of documents on both sides, delivered judgment and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff. The respondent appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Lahore and on October 25, 1920, that Court set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge and dismissed the plaintiffs suit. Hence the present appeal in which, admittedly, the only question for determination is whether the plaintiff is a Rajput.

The case made by the plaintiff, as the appellate Court states, was that although in the revenue records

8 Law. Rep. 52 Ind. App. 201 ( 1924- 1925) Ghulam Rasul Khan V. Secretary of State for India in C ouncil 20

the plaintiffs family has been shown since 1852 as holding land and their caste been described as " Khayyat Mohal" the term " Khayyat " does not deno