Back
1922 Supreme(SC) 61
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD PHILLIMORE, SIR JOHN EDGE, SIR LAWRENCE JENKINS AND LORD SALVESEN.
MAHOMED SOLAIMAN - Appellant
Versus
BIRENDRA CHANDRA SINGH - Respondents
On Appeal from the High Court at Calcutta.
Decided On : Nov. 28. 1922
Solicitors for appellant: Watkins & Hunter.
Solicitors for respondents: T. L. Wilson & Co.; Pugh & Co.
The court affirmed that government revenue accounts are presumed correct under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act and that the date of a kabuliyat does not necessarily determine the tenancy period if the tenancy is for the Bengali year.
Headnote:(A) Act XI of 1859 - Sections 2, 3, and 37 - Bengal Act VII of 1868 - Section 12 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114 - Sale of estate for arrears of revenue - Validity of sale - Ejectment of under-tenants - Presumption of correctness of government revenue accounts - The date of a kabuliyat is not necessarily the start date of a yearly tenancy if the tenancy is for the Bengali year - Government accounts kept by officials are presumed correct under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act unless proven otherwise.
(B) Duty of Appellate Courts - High Courts should pronounce opinions on all important issues joined in a case to avoid unnecessary remands and expenses for litigants.
Facts of the case:
An auction purchaser of land sold for arrears of government revenue sought to eject under-tenants and recover mesne profits. The defendants contested the sale, claiming that no arrears of revenue existed to justify the sale and that their tenures were protected under the exceptions provided in Section 12 of Bengal Act VII of 1868. The trial court ruled in favor of the purchaser, but the High Court reversed the decision, holding that there were no arrears at the date of the sale.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the tenancy was for the Bengali year and not a yearly letting starting from the date the kabuliyat was signed. Based on the revenue accounts maintained in the Collector's office, there were arrears for the specified year. The court further found that the under-tenants did not meet the criteria for protection under the statutory exceptions, as they did not exist at the time of the permanent settlement nor did they possess permanent improvements such as mines or permanent gardens.
Issues: Whether there were arrears of government revenue justifying the sale of the estate and whether the under-tenants were protected from ejectment under the statutory exceptions of Act XI of 1859 or Bengal Act VII of 1868.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the date of signing a kabuliyat does not automatically define the tenancy period if the tenancy is for the Bengali year. Furthermore, official revenue accounts are presumed to be correct under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. Regarding tenant protection, the absence of evidence showing existence since the permanent settlement or the presence of permanent improvements precludes protection from ejectment.
Result: Appeals allowed; decrees of the High Court set aside and decrees of the Subordinate Judge restored.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
land law
-
revenue law
- auction sales for arrears
-
tenancy law
- under-tenures
- ejectment
-
revenue law
-
practice and procedure
-
evidence
- presumptions
- appellate procedure
-
evidence
Judgement
Two consolidated appeals (No. 14 of 1922) from a judgment and two decrees (May 25, 1920) of the High Court reversing decrees of the Subordinate Judge (Second Court) of 24 Pargannas.
The appellant; who was the purchaser of holdings at an auction sale for arrears of revenue under Act
Law Rep. 50 Ind. App. 247 ( 1922- 1923) Mahomed Solaiman V. Birendra C handra Singh
283
XI. of 1859 sued to annul the defendants under-tenures and to eject them. The defence was that there was no arrear of revenue, and that in any case the under-tenures were protected by s. 12 of Bengal Act. VII. of 1868.
The Subordinate Judge decided all issues in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. Upon appeal the High Court reversed his decision, holding that there was no arrear at the date of the sale; the learned judges pronounced no opinion upon the question whether the under-tenures were protected by the section above mentioned.
The facts appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.
1922. Nov. 9. Sir George Lowndes K.C, and Dube for the appellant.
De Gruyther K.C. and Kenworthy Brawn for the representatives of the first respondent to the first appeal.
Wallach for the first respondent to the second appeal.
Nov. 28. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by
SIR JOHN EDGE. These are two consolidated appeals from two decrees, dated May 25, 1920, of the High Court at Calcutta, which reversed two decrees, dated January 31, 1918, of the Subordinate Judge (Second Court) of the 24 Pargannas. The decrees from which these consolidated appeals have been brought were respectively made in suits numbered 19 and 20 of 1917. In each of these suits the present appellant was the plaintiff, and some of the present respondents were the defendants in one of the suits and others of the present respondents were the defendants in the other of the suits. The suits were tried together, as were the appeals to the High Court. The suits are suits by an auction purchaser under Act XI. of 1859 of lands for ejectment of under-tenants and for mesne profits.
The lands to which the suits relate are situate within the collectorate of the 24 Pargannas, a permanently settled District of Bengal, to which Act XI., of 1859 applies. On April 14, 1915, the Collector of the District issued notice and proclamation under Act XI. of 1859 that the holding No. 20a, which is the land now in question, would be sold under Act XI. of 1859 for the realization of Rs.6, 10 annas and 5 pies revenue in arrears from the year 1320 B.S. The holding was sold by auction on May 17, 1915, and was purchased by the plaintiff, who subsequently received a sale certificate. The Government revenue for an arrear of which the holding was sold was the revenue for 1320 B.S. The defendants were at the date of the auction sale under-tenants of lands in the holding sold, and the plaintiff claims to be entitled to eject them.
The plaint and the written statement of Kumar Birendra Chandra Singh, a defendant in suit No. 19 of 1917, and the plaint and written statement in suit No. 20 of 1917, are in the printed record.
In his plaints the plaintiff alleged that the Collector of the District, on May 17, 1915, put the holding No. 20A up for sale by auction under the provisions of Act XI. of 1859 for arrears of the Government revenue, and that he (the plaintiff), having purchased it at the sale, and having obtained the sale certificate, had, under s. 37 of Act XI. of 1859, acquired it free of all encumbrances, and had become entitled to annul all the subordinate rights, and to recover khas possession of the holding by ejecting the tenants holding any subordinate right, and claimed a decree for ejectment and mesne profits. The defence, so far as it is now material, was that there was no arrear of the Government revenue to recover which the Collector was entitled to sell the holding, and that in any case the defendants were
Law Rep. 50 Ind. App. 247 ( 1922- 1923) Mahomed Solaiman V. Birendra C handra Singh
284
within the ex
