Back
1918 Supreme(SC) 88
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD BUCKMASTER, LORD DUNEDIN, AND SIR JOHN EDGE.
MAHARAJA RAM NARAYAN SINGH - Appellant
Versus
RAM SARAN LAL - Respondents
On Appeal from the High Court at Calcutta.
Decided On : Dec. 3. 1918.
Solicitor for appellant:Solicitor, India Office. Solicitors for respondents: T. L. Wilson & Co.
A jagir is prima facie a life estate. Ambiguous terms regarding descendants in a jagir grant are interpreted according to local custom; if custom dictates resumability upon the failure of male lineal descendants, the grant does not create an absolute estate of inheritance.
Headnote:(A) Jagir grants - Nature of estate - Prima facie life estate - Interpretation of the term 'putra-poutradi' - Effect of local custom on the resumability of grants upon failure of male lineal descendants - A jagir must be taken prima facie to be an estate only for life, although it may be granted in terms that make it hereditary. For a grant to be considered an estate of inheritance, the terms must be unambiguous and clearly show whether the right of inheritance is general or confined to a particular class of heirs.
(B) Construction of vernacular terms in grants - Where terms are ambiguous, local custom may be used to determine the intent of the grantor - If evidence establishes a custom that jagirs in a specific locality are resumable on the failure of male heirs in the male line, such custom resolves the ambiguity of terms that might otherwise be interpreted as conveying a general estate of inheritance.
(C) Distinction between devises in wills and jagir grants - Principles governing the construction of vernacular terms in a will to pass an estate of inheritance are not applicable to the construction of a jagir grant, as the latter is prima facie a life estate.
Facts of the case:
A village was granted as a jagir to a grantee with the provision that he and his descendants (using the vernacular term 'putra-poutradi') would enjoy the grant. The grantee and his sons subsequently died without issue. The current occupants of the land are collateral relatives of the grantee. The successor of the grantor sought possession of the village and mesne profits, contending that the jagir reverted to the grantor upon the failure of the grantee's male lineal descendants, in accordance with local custom.
Findings of Court:
The court found that a jagir is prima facie a life estate. The term 'putra-poutradi' is ambiguous when standing alone. However, documentary and oral evidence, including statistical accounts of the region, established a custom that jagirs in the locality were resumable upon the failure of male heirs in the male line. The court held that the construction of similar terms in wills does not apply to jagir grants.
Issues: Whether the grant of a jagir to a person and his descendants created an absolute estate of inheritance that could descend to collateral heirs, or whether it was resumable upon the failure of the grantee's male lineal descendants based on local custom.
Ratio Decidendi: A jagir is prima facie an estate for life. To establish an estate of inheritance, the grant must contain unambiguous terms. Where the terms are ambiguous, local custom regarding the resumability of such grants on the failure of male heirs in the male line determines the nature of the estate. Precedents regarding the construction of terms in wills are inapplicable to the nature of jagir grants.
Result: Decree of the High Court set aside and decree of the Subordinate Judge restored.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
property law
-
land tenure
-
jagir grants
- resumability
-
jagir grants
-
interpretation of grants
- customary law
-
land tenure
-
civil law
-
succession
- collateral succession
-
succession
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.
