JUDGMENT

Macpherson, J. - In these cases, there are two questions to be decided. The one is whether a grant by a zamindar of a portion of his estate to be held free of rent is a grant void as against the grantor and those claiming under him; the other is whether a similar grant made by a maurasidar is void as against the grantor and those claiming under him. The lands, which are the subject of discussion in the first of the two cases before us, were granted on the payment of sums of money to the grantor--were in fact sold. Whether the lands were given for a valuable consideration or otherwise does not, however, as it appears to me, materially affect the questions the Court has to decide; for whether sold or given, the conclusions at which I arrive will be the same.

2. The contention on behalf of the respondent is that, under S. 10 of Regulation XIX of 1793, such grants are null and void, and the lands may at any time be resumed by the grantor or those holding under him.

3. I shall first consider the case of grants by a zamindar. It is admitted, and is beyond dispute, that, although by Regulation XLIV of 1793 (passed contemporaneously with Regulation XIX of that year), a zamindar could not make a valid lease for a period exceeding ten years, still he was not, by that or any other law, under any restriction whatever as to the amount to be reserved by him on any lease he might make. Whatever might be the amount of Government revenue payable by the zamindar, the lease, if not for a period in excess of the prescribed limit, would be valid, although but a nominal rent were reserved. By Regulation V of 1812, the restriction as to the length of lease was removed; and from that time (to which the grants now under consideration are subsequent) a zamindar or other proprietor of land was competent to grant leases for any period he pleased, and for any rent, whether nominal or not, which he pleased. It is argued that, although when the grants (the effect of which the Court has now to determine) were made, the grantors might have given leases in perpetuity, and for a cowree or other nominal rent, which would have been valid and binding on their heirs and representatives, still the provisions of S. 10, Regulation XIX of 1793, are such that any gift or grant of any portion of the estate,--any absolute transfer of it,--whether for full valuable consideration or not, is invalid. It is said that the zamindar must always, when disposing of his lands, do so by way of lease, with a reservation of something, however small, in the way of rent, and that an absolute parting with his interest in any portion of his lands is void.

4. It appears to me that S. 10 of Regulation XIX is intended to apply to grants of 1 and to be held exempt from the payment of Government revenue, and that the meaning of it is that, when any attempt is made to dispose of lands, so that they shall be held as against the Government free from Government revenue, such attempt shall fail. The whole object of Regulation XIX of 1793 is to secure the Government revenue. The title declares it to be "a Regulation for trying the validity of the titles of persons claiming to hold lands exempt from the payment of revenue to Government; and for determining the amount of the annual assessment to be imposed on lands liable to the payment of public revenue."

5. S. 1, the preamble, recites that, by the old law, the Government was entitled to a certain proportion of the produce of every biga, and that, therefore, "if a zamindar made a grant of any part of his lands to be held exempt from the payment of revenue, it was considered void from being an alienation of the dues of Government;" for otherwise if such grants were upheld, obviously the revenue of Government would have been liable to gradual diminution. Further on the section recites that Government has declared void "all grants for holding land exempt from the payment of revenue" made without sanction since the Company's accession, but that the G