Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub
[blocks in formation]

or other assignment or transfer of proprietary right, are 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. 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

' S. 12.

3

* Regulations XIX and XXXVII of 1793, XLI and XLII of 1795, XXXI and XXXVI of 1803, VIII and XII of 1805.

• Umrithnauth Chowdhry v. Koonjbehary Singh, W. R., F. B., 34.

LECTURE

IX.

LECTURE

IX.

Statutory mokurreree tenures of ryots.

350

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."

Act X of 1859, section 3, 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.

Baboo Dhunput Singh v. Gooman Singh, 11 Moore's I. A., 433; 9 W. R., P. C., 3, s. c.

2 Thakooranee Dossee v. Bisheshur Mookerjee (the Great Rent Case), B. L. R., Supp. Vol., 202; 3 W. R. (Act X), 108, s. c. Mahomed Yacoob Hossein v. Shaikh Chowdhry Waheed Ali, 4 W. R. (Act X), 23; 1 Ind. Jur., 29, s. c. Ram Dayal Sing v. Baboo Latchmi Narayan, 6 B. L. R., App., 25; 14 W. R. 385, s. c.

[blocks in formation]

LECTURE

IX.

Mokurreree

tenures.

Act X of 1859, section 15, re-enacted by Act VIII of 1869 (B.C.), section 16, provides that no dependent talookdar or other person possessing a permanent transferable interest intermediate in land, intermediate between the proprietor of an estate and the ryot, who holds his talook or tenure (otherwise than under a terminable lease) at a fixed rent which has not been changed from the time of the Permanent Settlement, shall be liable to enhancement. Surbarakaree tenures in Cuttack, the holders of which have no power to transfer their holdings without the consent of the zemindar,* have been held to be permanent hereditary tenures within the meaning of this section.2

istemrari.

With regard to the creation by the zemindar of permanent Mokurreree heritable tenures at a fixed rent, it was at first held that a mokurreree istemrari tenure under a pottah was not heritable, unless the pottah also contained words of inheritance,3 the tendency in earlier, times being somewhat adverse to permanent under-tenures. Those decisions have however now been overruled; and the use of words of inheritance is not required to create a heritable tenure. It has been also held in a series of cases that where a pottah merely specifies the rent and contains no words importing that the tenure granted is hereditary, the hereditary character of the tenure may be supported by other circumstances, such as long occupation at a fixed rent and the descent of the tenure in the

'Doujodhna Doss v. Choorga Daye, 1 W. R., 322.

2 Saddanando Maiti v. Nourattan Maiti, 8 B. L. R., 280; 16 W. R., 290, s. c.

3 Baboo Toolsee Narain Sahee v. Baboo Modnarain Singh, S. D. A. (1848), 752. Rajah Modenarain Singh v. Kantlall, S. D. A. (1859),

1572.

Baboo Lekhraj Roy v. Kanbya Singh, 17 W. R., 485.

IX.

352

1

MOKURREREE ISTEMRARI.

LECTURE ordinary course. It has also been held that the words mokurreree istemrari are sufficient to create an hereditary perpetual tenure, and it seems one of which the rent is fixed," although the decisions are not quite uniform. Following the cases above referred to, it has been held that the words 'mokurreree istemrari,' combined with a descent through two generations, is sufficient to establish an hereditary tenure at a fixed rent. The mere use of the term 'mokurreree' will not create a perpetual tenure, nor will the words 'tikka mohto.' But a grant by a mokurrereedar of a lease or thika to last as long as the mokurreree lasts has been held heritable. And a grant of an absolute (moostakhil) mokurreree to the grantee and her children from generation to generation, gives a transferable interest of the most absolute kind, and which does not revert to the grantor on failure of heirs. Some of these grants are

1 Mohummud Ismail Jamadar v. Rajah Balungee Surrun, 3 Sel. Rep., 346. Joba Singh v. Meer Nujeeb Oolah, 4 Sel. Rep., 271. Golam Ali v. Baboo Gopal Lal Thakoor, 9 W. R., 65. Baboo Dhunput Singh v. Gooman Singh, 11 Moore's I. A., 433, see pp. 465, 466. Rajah Satyasaran Ghosal v. Mahesh Chundra Mitter, 2 B. L. R., P. C., 23, following Baboo Gopal Lall Thakoor v. Teluck Chunder Rai, 10 Moore's I. A., 191, where however there is only a dictum.

2 Mussamat Lakhu Kowar v. Hari Krishna Sing, 3 B. L. R., A.C., 226. Rajah Lilanund Singh Bahadoor o. Thakur Munorunjun Singh, 13 B. L. R., 124.

* See Mussamat Ameeroonissa Begum v. Maharajah Hetnarain Singh, S. D. A. (1853), 648; and Sorobur Singh v. Rajah Mohendernarain Singh, S. D. A. (1860), 577.

Karnakar Mahati v. Niladhro Chowdhry, 5 B. L. R., 652.

5

The Government of Bengal v.

5 Moore's I. A., 467.

Nawab Jafur Hossein Khan,

Nuffur Chunder Shaha v. Gossain Jysingh Bharutte, 3 W. R. (Act X), 144.

7 Baboo Lekhraj Roy v. Kanhya Singh, 17 W. R., 485.

• Mirza Himmut Bahadoor v. Ranee Sooneet Kooer, 15 W. R., 549.

[blocks in formation]

made while sun and moon endure (jawatchand diwakar)." On the other hand, some are only life-interests: thus it is customary in the Tipperah Raj to grant mokurreree tenures to members of the zemindar's family which by the custom of the Raj are resumable on the grantee's death.”

LECTURE
IX.

These tenures may be proved by long possession although Such tenures proved by long the pottah contains no word sufficient to create such a possession. tenure. Thus the receipt of rent for forty years, and an application made by the zemindar to a Civil Court for the sale of the tenure, were held sufficient ratification of a mokurreree tenure created before Regulation V of 1812, and which would therefore have been invalid under Regulation XLIV of 1793. And in an early case which arose in Cuttack great force was given to a payment of rent for only twelve years. In that case a khandait or sirdar of pykes claimed to hold a perpetual tenure at a fixed rate. He was also the zemindar, but his zemindary had been included in a jageer. His zemindary sunnud specified a certain rate of revenue, and this was also specified in the sunnud granting the jageer, which directed that the jageerdar and his heirs were to have all the privileges of the British Government, but were not to interfere with the rights of the zemindars, khandaits, and mokuddims of the mehals included in the jageer. The zemindar khandait had paid the specified rate for twelve years, and alleged that that rate had been paid under the Mahratta Government. It was held that the holding was perpetual and at a fixed rent, although no

'Morley's Digest, Vol. I, p. 419, pl. 37,

2 Roop Moonjuree Kooeree v. Beer Chunder Jobraj, 9 W. R., 308. 3 Unoda Pershad Banerjee v. Chunder Sekhur Deb, 7 W. R., 394. Pearee Mohun Mookerjee v. Rajkishto Mookerjee, 11 W. R., 259. Brajanath Kundu Chowdhry v. Lakhi Narayan Addi, 7 B. L. R., 211.

« ПредишнаНапред »