Lord Wright.-The appellant, who is the taluqdar of Bhawanshahpur, brought his action in the Court of the Civil Judge, Sultanpur, Oudh, claiming a declaration that the United Provinces Tenancy Act, 1939, is either ultra vires or not intra vires of the Provincial Legislature, either in its entirety or at least as regards the provisions, about 42 in number, scheduled to the complaint. His claim failed before the Judge; he then appealed to the Federal Court of India, which dismissed the appeal but granted leave to appeal to this Board.1

The appellant is the direct descendant of Babu Sitla Baksh Singh, who was grantee of a Sanad from the Governor-General after the Indian Mutiny of 1857. By this Sanad the Crown granted to the appellant’s predecessor in title the full proprietary rights, the permanent heritable and transferable rights in the ancestral estate which were confirmed by the Oudh Estates Act (No. I of 1869). That Act contains entries of the name of the appellant’s predecessor in lists I and II of the lists prepared under section 8 of the Act, the numbers of the entries being No. 241 and No. 108. List No. 1 contains a list of all persons who are to be considered taluqdars within the meaning of the Act. The position of the taluqdar is defined by section 3 of the Act to be that he should be deemed to have thereby acquired a permanent heritable and transferable right in the estate specified. The grant of the estate was under section 3 to be subject to all the conditions affecting the taluqdar contained in the orders passed by the Governor General of India on the 10th and 19th days of October, 1859, and republished in the first Schedule annexed to the Act and subject also to all the conditions contained in the Sanad under which the estate was held. These letters are set out in full in Chhail Bihari Lai’s book on the taluqdari law of Oudh at p. 387 seq. It is enough here to quote the passage in the letter of the 19th October, 1859, which is specially relevant to the questions involved in this case. This passage, which is set out in the judgment of Gwyer, C.J., in the present appeal in the Federal Court, runs thus:

" The Sanads declare that while, on the one hand, the Government has conferred on the taluqdars and on their heirs for ever the full proprietary right in their respective estates, subject only to the payment of the annual revenue that may be imposed from, time to time, and to certain conditions of loyalty and good service, on the other hand, all persons holding an interest in the land under the taluqdars will be secured in the possession of the subordinate rights, which they have heretofore enjoyed. The meaning of this is that, when a regular settlement of the Province is made, whenever it is found that Zamindars or other persons have held an interest in the soil intermediate between the raiyat and the taluqdar, the amount or proportion payable by the intermediate holder to the taluqdar and the net jama finally payable by the taluqdar to the Government, will be fixed and recorded after careful and detailed survey and injuiry into each case, and will remain unchanged during the currency of the settlement, the taluqdar being, of course, free to improve his income and the value of his property by the reclamation of waste lands (unless in cases where usage has given the liberty of reclamation to the zamindar), and by other measures of which he will receive the full benefit at the end of the settlement. Where leases (pattas) are given to the subordinate zamindars, they will be given by the taluqdar, not by the Government. This being the position in which the taluqdars will be placed, they cannot, with any show of reason, complain if the Government takes effectual steps to re-establish and maintain in subordination to them the former rights, as those existed in 1855, of other persons whose connection with the soil is in many cases more intimate and more aneient than theirs; and it is obvious that the only effectual protection,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document