Judgement

Appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court (January 16, 1914) reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Hazaribagh (August 12, 1910).

The question for determination in the appeal was whether the appellant (plaintiff), the Maharaja of Ramgarh, was entitled to resume a jagir of a village, granted in 1852 by-one of his-predecessors, upon failure of lineal descendants of the grantee. The village was in Raj Ramgarh, in Chota Nagpur, Hazaribagh district. The terms of the grant appear in full in the judgment of their Lordships.

The following issues, among others, were settled (5.) What is the true character of the jagir grant now in question? Is it liable to be resumed upon failure of the male heirs of Kanhai Singh? (6.) Is there any

Law Rep. 46 Ind. App. 88 ( 1918- 1919) Maharaja Ram Narayan Singh V. Ram Saran Lal

206

custom of resuming jagir grants on the failure of the male heirs of the original grantee, as stated in the plaint ? If so, will the custom apply to the grant in question?

Much documentary and oral evidence was called at the trial as to grants of jagirs in Raj Ramgarh, and reference was made to the following passage in Hunters Statistical Account of Bengal, vol. 16 (Districts of Hazaribagh and Lohardaga), p. 122 "Although the Raja of Ramgarh had the power to resume the jagirs and khairats on the death of the holder, they never exercised this power. But on the death of the holder, sometimes on receipt of a nazrana, but more frequently without any consideration, they confirmed the original grant to the heirs until, by efflux of time, they lost the power of redemption; and the life-tenures have now become permanent and liable to resumption only on the failure of heirs of the original grantees. In confirming this jagir grants the Rajas only recognized the eldest son or the eldest branch of the original holder. After the permanent settlement, the Rajas of Ramgarh created by sanads fresh jagir and khairat grants, either as reward for good service or for some good consideration, assimilating the nature of the new grants to those of the old jagir and khairat grants the difference being that the old jagirs and khairats, granted before the permanent settlement, are held on unwritten while those subsequently created are held by written, contract."

The Subordinate Judge found that the custom alleged by the appellant that jagirs in Raj Ramgarh were resumable upon a failure of the grantees male lineal heirs was abundantly proved, and he held that, in the absence of evidence differentiating a jagir granted to a man and his putra-poutradi, the grant in question was resumable.

The High Court reversed the decision. The learned judges (Stephen and Mullick JJ.) held that, having regard to decisions of the Privy Council as to the effect of the words putra-poutradi, the grant was of an absolute estate of inheritance. The appeal is reported at I. L. R. 42 C. 305.

1918. Oct. 18, 21. Dunne K.C. (Picciotto with him) for the appellant. It is well established that a jagir is prima facie an estate for life Gulabdas Jugivandas v. Collector of Surat (( 1878) L. R. 6 I. A. 54.); Bengal Regulation XXXVII. of 1793, s. 15. The onus was upon the respondents to show that the grant carried an estate of absolute inheritance. The evidence conclusively showed that jagirs in the locality were resumable on a failure of male heirs. See, too, Hunters Statistical Account of Bengal, vol. 16, pp. 117, 121, 122. There was no evidence that putra-poutradi jagirs stood upon a different footing. Those words in themselves are not sufficiently clear to satisfy the onus in the face of the evidence as to custom Perkash Lal v. Rameshwar Nath Singh. (( 1904) I. L. R. 31 C 561.) That case related to a jagir in Chota Nagpur, and the terms of the grant—namely, al aulad— make it an a fortiori case. The High Court wrongly applied the decisions of the Board in Ram Lal Mookerjee v. Secretary of State for India (L. R. 8 I. A. 46.), and Lalit Mohun Singh Roy v. C