Back
1940 Supreme(SC) 36
Privy Council At Bombay
Sir George Rankin, Lord Wright, Justice Viscount Maugham, JJ.
Shankarrao Dagadujirao Jahagirdar -Appellant
Versus
Sambhu Nathu Patil -Resopndent
Privy Council Appeal No. 50 of 1938
Decided On : 03-07-1940
Hy. S.L. Polak and Co., T.L. Wilson and Co., J. Nissim, L.P.E. Pugh, W.W.K. Page
Statutory presumptions in the Record of Rights, supported by evidence of heritability, transferability, and capital investment, can establish the permanent nature of agricultural tenancies, overriding the general presumption that such tenancies are annual.
Headnote:(A) Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 - Section 83 - Presumption of permanence for ancient tenancies - For the presumption to apply, there must be no satisfactory evidence of the date of commencement and such lack must be due to the antiquity of the tenancy - A tenancy's origin within a period of twenty years that cannot be more precisely ascertained does not constitute satisfactory evidence of the date of commencement.
(B) Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 - Section 135-J - Presumption of truth for Record of Rights - Entries in the Record of Rights are presumed true until the contrary is proved - This statutory presumption is not weakened by the fact that the landlord was a minor at the time of the record's preparation.
(C) Agricultural Tenancies - Inference of permanence - While agricultural tenancies are not prima facie permanent, an inference of permanence is warranted when supported by cumulative circumstances such as the heritable nature of the interest, the execution of sales and mortgages by tenants without landlord objection, and the making of capital improvements on the land.
Facts of the case:
The appellant, an inamdar of a village, sought to evict respondents from agricultural lands, claiming the tenancies were annual and determinable by notice. The tenancies had originated under a system of assessment per plough. A Record of Rights prepared by the government treated the tenants as having permanent tenancies. The appellant, upon reaching majority, accepted rents based on this settlement but later issued notices to quit.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the statutory presumption of truth regarding the Record of Rights was applicable and supported by independent considerations, including the transfer of interests between tenants, the heritable nature of the tenancies, and the tenants' investment in sinking wells. The evidence produced by the landlord was not sufficiently strong to overthrow the claim of permanent interest.
Issues: Whether the agricultural tenancies were annual tenancies determinable by notice or permanent tenancies, and whether the Record of Rights established a presumption of permanence that the landlord failed to rebut.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the statutory presumption of the Record of Rights, when reinforced by evidence of heritability, transferability of rights, and capital investments, creates a strong inference of permanence. The general principle that agricultural tenancies are not prima facie permanent is overridden when the cumulative evidence points exclusively to a permanent interest.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
property law
-
land tenancy
- permanent tenancy
- annual tenancy
-
land tenancy
-
administrative law
-
land revenue
- record of rights
-
land revenue
-
evidence
- statutory presumptions
Sir George Rankin:-
In this case six appeals have been consolidated. They are brought from a decision of the High Court of Bombay dated 4th October 1934, in suits by the appellant for ejectment of the respondents from the lands of their tenancies under him. In each case the basis of the claim was that the tenancy is an annual tenancy determinable at the end of the agricultural year, namely 31st March, upon three months' notice. The lands in question are arable land in the inam village of Khed Digar. This village is in the Shahada Taluka of the West Khandesh District in the Presidency of Bombay, and lies upon the extreme northern boundary of the Deccan where it abuts upon the Barwani State. The total area of the village would appear to be under 1400 acres and the population about 400 persons of whom a little more than a quarter are Bhils.
The appellant is the inamdar of the village and traces his title back to an inam grant by the Maratha Ruler in 1798. This title was confirmed by the British Government in 1843 and in 1880 a sanad was granted by the Government of Bombay to the appellant's father showing that, subject to the deduction of some 120 acres alienated by grants of earlier date than 1798, the village was the grantee's permanent heritable property held subject to payment to Government of a judi or quit rent of Rs.13 per annum, and nazarana of Rs. 14-8-0. in all Rs.27-8-0. It has been contended for the respondents that the appellant is not shown to be a grantee of the village but only of a certain share in the revenue of the village but the finding of the High Court that he is grantee of the soil appears to their Lordships to be so well founded that it is unnecessary to discuss the question afresh.
Each of the six suits was brought against a single defendant as sole tenant but this appeal has been contested by one only of the six defendants, namely by the respondent Sambhu Nathu (herein called the first respondent),who was in possession of a large area of 770 acres. He was sued in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Dhulia on 26th June 1928, and he succeeded in that Court upon the ground (which their Lordships think to be erroneous) that the appellant had no title to the soil but only to the revenue of the village. From this decision the appeal to the High Court was a first appeal in which questions of fact as well as of law were open. The other respondents were sued in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge at Nandurbar on 6th July 1928. These suits were decreed and ejectment ordered by the trial Judge (20th March 1930) and on first appeal the District Judge affirmed this decision (8th January 1931). The High Court dealt with all six cases by one judgment and dismissed the suits (4th October 1934). The appellant's father had succeeded to the inam by 1857. He lived till 1904 and was succeeded by the appellant who was then aged eight years. The Collector of West Khandesh was appointed by the District Judge as the appellant's guardian in 1905 and acted as such till the appellant came of age in 1917.
Such documentary evidence as there is of the history of the agricultural tenancies in this village has reference almost entirely to the lifetime of the appellant's father. It consists mainly of documents produced by the appellant to show that the tenancies in question cannot be traced back beyond a certain number of years. The result of the documents in this respect has been found by the High Court to be as follows : that Sambhu Nathu, who has acquired an interest in a large part of the village through purchases of the rights of other tenants made from time to time by his father and by himself, has shown that one of his tenancies goes back to 1855-56 and another to 1856-57, but that he cannot be held to have traced his other tenancies back to a period earlier than the year 1892; and the tenancies of the other respondents likewise are traced only to 1892. By a village ledger (khatavani) for the year 1856 it wo
