Judgement

Consolidated Appeals, by special leave, from two judgments and twenty decrees of the High Court (November 25, 1909, and June 3, 1910) affirming, subject to a modification, decrees of the District Judge and the Subordinate Judge of Birbhum, which decrees affirmed decrees of the said Subordinate Judge and of the Munsifs Court of Rampurhat.

The appellant was the proprietor of zamindaris in the Birbhum district which were settled with his predecessor at the permanent settlement in 1793. At various dates between 1834 and 1862 some of these zamindaris, or in some cases mauzas within them, had been settled by patni leases granted by the predecessors of the appellant, or by the appellant himself. These patnis covered in each case the entire interest of the zamindar in the lands within the boundaries specified. The patnidars under some of the patnis had assigned their rights thereunder by darpatni gran is. Within the boundaries of the patni grants there had existed from the time of the permanent settlement certain chaukidari chakaran tenures.

In and between 1895 and 1900 the Collector of Birbhum, acting under the Village Chaukidari Act (Bengal Act VI. of 1870), resumed many of the above-mentioned chaukidari chakaran lands and transferred them to the appellant.

Twenty suits were instituted upon dates between February, 1905, and June, 1906, against the appellant, by patnidars and darpatnidars above referred to, the present respondents. The plaints contended that the patni leases included such of the chaukidari chakaran lands as were within their respective boundaries, and that, after the transfer of them to the appellant, the plaintiffs respectively were entitled to khas possession, subject to payment to the appellant of the assessments fixed by the Collector upon the transfer under the Act.

Some of the suits were heard by the Subordinate Judge of Birbhum, some by the Munsif of Rampurhat, and decrees were made for possession subject to the payment of the assessments made under Bengal Act VI. of 1870.

The appellant appealed to the High Court. Judgments were delivered on November 9, 1909, and June 3, 1910, the former being reported at I. L. R. 37 Calc. 57. The learned judges held, with regard to the only question now raised, that in conformity with previous decisions of the High Court the patnidars and darpatnidars were entitled to possession. It was, however, further held that the cases should be remanded to the lower appellate Courts to determine the conditions upon which the lands in suit should be held, and that those conditions should be ascertained upon the principles laid down in Gopendra Chandra Mitter v. Tarajprasanna Mukerjee (( 1910) I. L. R. 37 Calc. 598.) and cases there mentioned.

1916. Nov. 16, 17, 22. De Gruyther, K.C., and Eddis, for the appellant. The respondents are not entitled to possession of the chaukidari chakaran lands under the patnis. Before the transfer to the appellant under Bengal Act VI. of 1870 he had no interest in those lands, but only rights as to the services of the chaukidars. The form of the transfer provided by Sched. C of the Act shows that the Government owned the lands. At the permanent settlement the zamindars were recognized as proprietors of revenue-paying lands only. The lands in suit were held by chaukidars who formed part of the police force ; they came under s. 8, sub-s. 4, of Bengal Regulation

I. of 1793, and were not revenue-paying lands. The chakaran lands referred to in s. 41 of Bengal Regulation VIII. of 1793 are revenue-paying lands. [Reference was made to Bengal Regulation VIII., ss. 4, 5? 34, 36 to 41, 66, and 67, sub-s. 4, and to Haringtons Analysis, vol. 1, pp. 459, 513.] The interpretation placed by the Board in Secretary of State for India v. Kirtibas Hari-chandan Mahapatra (( 1914) L. R. 42 Ind. Ap. 30.) upon the definition of chaukidari chakaran lands contained in s. 1 of Bengal Act VI. of 1870 supports this view. The judgment (at p. 43) refers to chaukidari chakaran