Back
1923 Supreme(SC) 39
Privy Council
Ameer Ali, Sir John Edge, Phillimore, Justice Sumner, JJ.
Raja Srinath Ray and others -Appellant
Versus
Maharaja Pratap Udai Nath Sahai Deo, -Resopndent
P. C. A. No. 109 of 1922
Decided On : 25-07-1923
Indermaur and Brown, T. L. Wilson and Co., Y. B. D. Bamsay, A.M. Dunne, G.D. MacNair, G.R. Lowndes
Entries in a published Record of Rights are presumed correct unless proven otherwise. A tenure is resumable if it is a service jagir descendable in the direct male line; a new grant by the Zemindar upon failure of such line confirms its resumable nature rather than independence.
Headnote:(A) Tenancy Act - Sections 102 and 103(6) - Regulation VIII of 1793 - Sections 5 and 7 - Nature of tenure - Resumable jagir vs. independent estate - Presumption of correctness of Record of Rights - Every entry in a record-of-rights so published shall be presumed to be correct until the contrary is proved. (Paras 5, 6)
(B) Independent vs. Dependent Talukdars - Distinction between actual proprietors and leaseholders - To obtain separation of jama, specific procedures under the Regulation must be followed - Absence of such record precludes a claim of independent status.
(C) Resumption of Jagir - Resumption on failure of the direct male line does not imply escheat to the Zemindar as private property, but entitles the Zemindar to make a new settlement with the sanction of authorities.
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff purchased a property in execution of a mortgage decree, claiming it was an absolute estate. The defendant, the Zemindar, contended the property was a resumable jagir tenure that reverted to him upon the failure of the lineal male line of the previous grantee. A Record of Rights had been prepared listing the property as a resumable service tenure. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the estate was independent and the revenue entry was erroneous.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the entry in the Record of Rights was incorrect. The evidence showed that the property was incorporated into the Zemindari and the holder had not sought separation of jama as required for independent Talukdars. The subsequent grant to a successor was a new settlement with altered terms, confirming the resumable nature of the tenure.
Issues: Whether the property was a resumable jagir or an independent estate incorporated into the Zemindari for revenue purposes, and whether the subsequent grant to a successor was a continuation of the old tenure or a new settlement.
Ratio Decidendi: The presumption of correctness of the Record of Rights shifts the burden of proof to the party challenging it. In the absence of evidence of separation of jama under the relevant Regulation, and given the Zemindar's power to alter terms in a new grant upon the failure of the male line, the tenure is deemed resumable.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
property law
-
land tenure
-
jagir tenure
- resumable tenure
-
talukdari
- independent vs dependent talukdars
-
jagir tenure
-
land tenure
-
administrative law
-
revenue records
- record of rights
-
revenue records
-
practice and procedure
-
evidence
- legal presumptions
-
evidence
Mr. Ameer Ali:-
The suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought by the plain tiffs on the 28th July, 1908, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ranchi under the following circumstances. The plaintiff Sri nath Roy purchased on the 15th September, 1899, in execution of a mortgage decree, Pargana Bundu, a property lying within the estate of Chota Nagpur. The second and third plaintiffs are Srinath Roy's brothers and inter ested in the purchase, whilst the fourth is an assignee of a share in the property in question. It appears that in 1895, the first three plaintiffs advanced a large sum of money to one Tikait Jagannath Roy, since deceased, who was then in possession of the property, on a mortgage of the same. The document of mortgage bears date the 2nd of August, 1895. In default of payment a suit was brought, and a decree obtained upon it in October, 1898.
The sale proclamation was issued on the 20th of July, 1899, and the sale held, as already stated, on the 15th of September, 1899. The plaintiff Srinath Roy obtained the sale certificate on the 20th of January, 1900. He claims that Pargana Bundu was the absolute estate of his mortgagor and that he is entitled to it by virtue of his purchase.
The defendant is the Zemindar of the Chota Nagpur estate, and his contention is that the property in question was a jagir tenure held by Jagannath defeasible on failure of the lineal male line of the grantee, and the plaintiffs' mortgagor having died without leaving any male issue, he has resumed the same, as he was law fully entitled to do.
In 1903 the Bengal Government directed, under Chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act, the prepara tion of a Record of Rights in res pect of the Chota Nagpur estate.
The Settlement Officer, Mr. Lister, in pursuance of the instructions of the Government, and in accordance with the pro visions of the Tenancy Act, instituted a careful and minute enquiry relating to the tenures and other subordinate tenancies within the Chota Nagpur estate. Section 102, Clause X, requires the settlement Officer to include among other particulars "the special conditions and incidents, if any, of the tenancy" regarding which the enquiry is being held. Mr. Lister, accordingly made in the Register of tenancies, techni cally called the Khewat, the following entry against Pargana Bundu :-
" Col. 4 :-Nature of rights - Jagir Khidmat (that is, service tenure resum able).
"Col. 5. - Resumable or not - Kabil zabti.
"Col. 11. - Remarks - ' Yeh Jagir Tekait Basdeo Bai, hasil kiya is short par ke Putradik bhog kare '
" The entry in the column of remarks is intended to mean that the tenure is Putra Putradik and derived from Basdeo Rai."
Basdeo was the grandfather of the mortgagor. It is to be noted that the words Putra Putradik denote descent in the direct male line. The entry rendered into English runs thus :- "This Jagir was ob tained by Tekait Basdeo Rai on condition of enjoyment in the di rect male line."
Section 103 (6) of the Tenancy Act provided that :-
"A certificate, signed by the Revenue Officer, stating that a record-of-rights has been finally published under this chapter, shall be conclusive evidence of such publi cation ; and every entry in a record-of-rights so published shall be presumed to be correct until the contrary is proved."
The plaintiff accordingly bro ught this suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ranchi to set aside the order of the Settle ment Officer referred to above, and to obtain a declaration that Pargana Bundu was held as an independent estate by the ancestors of his mortgagor from a time pre vious to the Permanent Settlement made by the Government with the Maharaja of Chota Nagpur, that it was incorporated as a Sikmi or dependent Taluk in such settle ment with the Maharaja merely for the payment of the revenue through him, that, the subsequent grant made by the Maharaja to Basdeo Roy referred to in the Settlement Officer's entry was not consequent upon a resumption or fresh settlement, but was a me
