« ПредишнаНапред »
agreement may be annulled under the Regulation than To demandable by the former malgoozar except in the cases specified in section 32 of Regulation XI of 1822. This section was also repealed by Act I of 1845, re-enacted by section 27 of that Act, and ultimately repealed by Act XI of 1859. Act XI of 1859, section 37, provides that nothing in that section relating to the right of the purchaser at an auction-sale to avoid under-tenures shall entitle any such purchaser to eject any ryot having a right of occupancy at a fixed rent, or at a rent assessable according to fixed rules under the laws in force; or to enhance the rent of any such ryot otherwise than in the manner prescribed by such laws, or otherwise than the former proprietor, irrespectively of all engagements made since the time of settlement, may have been entitled to do. The same provision is found in Act VII of 1868 (B. C), section 14. Khoodkasht holdings are in some parts transferable without the landlord's consent, but in other parts not.1
With regard to mokurreree holdings or holdings at a fixed rate, provision is made by the Regulations of 23rd November 1791 and Regulation VIII of 1793, that mokurreree leases to persons other than the proprietors of the land, if granted or confirmed by Government, or obtained before the accession to the Dewanny, are to be continued in force during the lives of the lessees; but on their death the settlement is to be made with the actual proprietors of the soil.2 This provision clearly refers to mokurreree malgoozars. It is also provided that mokurreree grants to the actual proprietors of the soil are under the same circumstances to be ISTEMRARI AND MOUROOSEE TENURES. 347
1 Joykissen Mookerjee v. Ilajkissen Mookerjee, 1 W. R., 153. * Regulations of 23rd November 1791, art. 15. Regulation VIII of 1793, s. 16.
continued, without limiting the continuance to the holder's Lrc-tork
life.1 Further, mokurreree holders of lands, of which such — holders are not the actual proprietors, under grants obtained since the accession to the Dewanny, and not sanctioned by Government, are to be dispossessed, and the settlement made with the proprietors, but with an allowance to the dipossessed holders if they have held for more than twelve years. These last mokurreree holders are supposed to be originally tenants who have ousted their landlords, or mere wrongdoers who have obtained possession without the consent of the landlord. They are classed as tenants in the Regulation, and therefore we may deal with them here, but as I have already pointed out there was no such relation of tenure between the zemindar and the subordinate holder of land; and the mokurrereedars in question do not seem to have held under leases for terms, but were probably merely subordinate revenue payers of a superior class to the bulk of the ryots, and who held at a fixed revenue." Istemrari istemrari and and mouroosee tenures are of the same class. An istemrari tenures. or mouroosee tenure is a permanent hereditary tenure: if it is also mokurreree it is held permanently at a fixed rent or revenue.* Istemrari tenures are mentioned in the Regulations for the Decennial and Permanent Settlements. The holding in perpetuity seems to have been considered less in the nature of an encroachment on the proprietary rights than the holding at a fixed rate; probably because the latter appeared to leave the supposed proprietor a less beneficial
1 Regulations of 23rd November 1791, art. 16. Regulation VIII ot 1793, s. 17.
■ Regulations of 23rd November 1791, art. 17. Regulation VIII of 1793,s.l8.
Lkcturk property in the land, but to give the fruits of all improve— ments or increase in the cultivation to the mokurrereedar. Accordingly istemrardars are spoken of as not having got possession to the exclusion or without the consent of the proprietors, as the mokurrereedars are supposed to have done. They are looked upon as holding of the proprieton by lease, and are to be considered as a species of pottah talookdars, and the settlement is to be made with them,' so that they are put in the position of direct revenue payers, although they were assumed to have been before subordinate to the zemindar; while the mokurrereedars, who would seem to have been paying revenue direct, are placed in a lower class. It is further provided that istemrardars, as they are called, of the nature of those described as mokurrereedars, holding lands of which they are not proprietors under grants since the accession to the Dewanny, and who have held more than twelve years at a fixed rent, are not to be liable to be assessed with any increase, either by Government or by the zemindar or other actual proprietor, in case he engages for his own lands. In other cases, if the zemindar or other actual proprietor has bound himself by deed not to enhance the rent, he cannot enhance; but in case the zemindary is held khas or let in farm, the Government or farmer may demand the general rate of the district.2 By Regulation III of 1828, section 11, clause 2, it is provided that persons succeeding to the possession of any lands held on a mokurreree jumma, on the decease of a former occupant, or by gift, purchase
1 Regulations of 23rd November 1791. Regulation VIII of 1793, s. 19.
■ Regulations of 23rd November 1791, arts. 51, 52. Regulation VIII of 1793, ss. 49, 50.
or other assignment or transfer of proprietary right, are Lkcturk required to notify the same to the Collector, under penalty ~— of attachment of the land, which attachment is not to be removed except upon payment of a fine of a year's rent. This provision apparently refers to revenue-paying holdings, the jumma being fixed: the section goes on to speak of the ryots as different from the mokurrereedar. The Regulation further provides1 that all tenures not duly registered, and those whose description in the register does not show them to be held under an hereditary title or as a perpetual endowment, shall be, and be held to have been, liable to resumption on the death of the person in possession at the passing of the various resumption Regulations," unless declared hereditary by a Court. And the Collectors are to assess, and if necessary, attach such lands in the same manner as a lapsed farm. These provisions are for the security of Government and not of private interests.3 The section then provides, with regard to the construction of the documents of title of land exempt from assessment, that the whole document shall be considered and not merely the designation of the tenures. Thus a jageer shall not be held to be a life-tenure when it appears to be clearly intended that it shall be hereditary: nor shall any tenure be considered hereditary and perpetual unless so expressed in the grant. The provisions in the Regulations appear to concern themselves primarily with the Government right to revenue, although also affecting the zemindar's right to
1 S. 12.
• Regulations XIX and XXXVII of 1793, XLI and x£II of 1795, XXXI and XXXVI of 1803, VIII and XII of 1805. » Umrithnauth Chowdhry v. Koonjbehary Singb, W. R., F. B., 34.
STATUTORY MOKURREREE TENURES.
rent; since, when the zemindar was entitled to displace the mokurrereedar or istemrardar, or to get rid of their title, he might let the lands in the usual way. The Regulations however do not appear to concern themselves with under-tenures held on mokurreree or istemrari titles, and forming part of the zemindary assessed in the ordinary way; but only with those holdings which, although subordinate in theory to the zemindar, were assessed on the footing of the fixed jumma or perpetual holding. The Permanent Settlement was adverse to such tenures, and strictly limited the rights of their holders.1
Act X of 1859, section 8, and Act VIII of 1869 (B.C.), section 3, provide that ryots who hold lands at fixed rates of rent, which shall not have been changed from the time of the Permanent Settlement, are entitled to receive pottahs at those rates. The " fixed rates " here spoken of include not merely fixed and definite sums payable as rent, but also rates regulated by certain fixed principles." And section 4 of those Acts provides that whenever, in any suit under those Acts, it shall be proved that the rent at which land is held by a ryot has not been changed for a period of twenty years before the commencement of the suit.it shall be presumed that the land has been held at that rent from the time of the Permanent Settlement, unless the contrary be shown, or unless it be proved that such rent was fixed at some later period.
1 Baboo Dkunput Singh v. Gooman Singh, 11 Moore's I. A., 433; 9 W. R., P. C, 3, s. c.
* Thakooranee Dosseec. Bisheshur Mookerjee (the Great Rent Cose), B. L. R., j3upp. Vol., 202; 3 W. R. (Act X), 108, 8. c. Mahomed Yacoob Hossein v. Shaikh Chowdhry Waheed Ali, 4 W. R. (Act X), 23; 1 Ind. Jar., 29, s. c. Ram Dayal Sing v. Baboo Latchmi Narayan, 6 B. L. R., App., 25; 14 W. R. 385, s. c.