LECTURE X. Effect of trans fer of holding ryot. 364 EFFECT OF TRANSFER OF HOLDING. occupancy. I have already discussed the position of the khoodkashts: their right may have tended in some parts to become the kind of right here referred to, and to lose such alienability as it had acquired. There has been considerable discussion as to the effect of by occupancy a transfer of a holding in which the tenant has only a right of occupancy, and which as we have seen cannot itself be transferred. In one case in which the zemindar sued for possession against the transferee, contending that the transfer gave the transferee no rights, it was held that the landlord could not evict the transferee so long as the recorded tenant or his representatives paid the rent, but that he was not bound to recognise the transfer, or take rent from the transferee.' The effect of this decision is to keep the right and liability in the original tenant, the transferee being regarded as a lessee of the occupancy holder. Other decisions agree in this view. Again it has been held that the transfer is not a forfeiture.3 In another case it was said that a tenant with a right of occupancy could not transfer his title without possession as against the zemindar or talookdar. In the same case it was said that if a ryot having a non-transferable tenure quits possession and gives over the land to a stranger, he may be treated as Joykishen Mookerjee v. Rajkishen Mookerjee, 5 W. R., 147. Ajoodhya Pershad v. Mussamat Emam Bandee, 2 In. Jur., 192; B. L. R., Supp. Vol., 725, s. c. ; 7 W. R., 528, s. c. Rani Durga Sundari v. Brindaban Chandra Sirkar Chowdhry, 2 B. L. R., App., 37; 11 W. R., 162, s. c. Suddye Purira v. Boistub Purira, 12 B. L. R., 84 (note); 15 W. R., 261, s. c. • Gorachund Moostafee v. Buroda Pershad Moostafee, 11 W. R., 94. Suddye Purira v. Boistub Purira, 15 W. R., 261. Dwarkanath Misree v. Kanaye Sirdar, 16 W. R., 112. Hureehur Mookerjee v. Jodonath Ghose, 7 W. R., 114. EFFECT OF TRANSFER OF HOLDING. 365 having abandoned his rights in the land, or as a tenant-atwill whose tenancy is determined, and that the landlord may sue to have it declared that no interest vests in a purchaser from such tenant. In one of the latest cases on the point, however, a view somewhat different to those before referred to is taken. In that case' Mr. Justice Phear, in a judgment already quoted, treated a transfer neither as a forfeiture by the original ryot nor as conveying a right to the transferee; he held the transferee to be a mere trespasser as against the zemindar, whom he considers entitled to keep his own tenant in possession and to evict the transferee, who cannot plead as against the zemindar that the original tenant is entitled to possession. The learned Judge throws out that it may possibly be that the transferor has not lost his right as against the zemindar to resume his occupation. In the latest decision upon the point, it was held that an attempt to transfer a right of occupancy by a ryot, who quits his occupation and ceases himself to cultivate or hold the land, may be treated as an abandonment of the right so as to entitle the landlord to evict the transferee. In his judgment in that case, Mr. Justice Phear remarked that in the case before referred to,R nothing was decided as to the rights of the transferor. An occupancy ryot may it seems lease and it has been held that he may grant a mokurreree lease without rendering his LECTURE Bibee Sohodwa v. Smith, 12 B. L. R., 82; 20 W. R., 139, s. c. 'Narendra Narayan Roy Chowdhry v. Ishan Chandra Sen, 13 B. L. R., 274. 'Bibee Sohodwa v. Smith, 12 B. L. R., 82; 20 W. R., 139, s. c. ⚫ Jumeer Gazee v. Goneye Mundul, 12 W. R., 111. Bibee Sohodwa v. Smith, 12 B. L. R., 82; 20 W. R., 139, s. c. LECTURE X. Subinfeudation. lessee liable to ejectment.' Moreover, the landlord may be sued for damages by an occupancy ryot who has sub-let, if the landlord takes upon himself to recover rent from the tenants of the occupancy ryot. We have seen that this right has been held to be liable to be lost in some cases, as by abandonment.3 Setting up a fictitious pottah has been held to cause forfeiture or loss of the right;" but this decision has been questioned by Sir Richard Couch. It has even been held in the North-Western Provinces that planting trees on the land without the zemindar's consent forfeits the right of occupancy. I shall hereafter give some description of the putnee talook in more immediate connexion with the Sale laws. I now proceed to notice some further points in connexion with tenures in general. It is well known that the Permanent Settlement gave an enormous impetus to the subinfeudation which had already begun to be a marked feature of the land system of Bengal. Upon this subject the following remarks may be inserted here: Sir George Campbell says:"-" At the Permanent Settlement Government by abdicating its position as exclusive possessor of the soil, and contenting itself with a permanent rent-charge on the land, escaped thenceforward all the labour and risks attendant upon detailed mofussil 81. 9 Dumree Shaikh v. Bissessur Lall, 13 W. R., 291. Jugalkishor Banerjee v. Abhaya Charan Sarma, 1 B. L. R., A.C., See also Huro Doss v. Gobind Bhuttacharjee, 12 W. R., 304; 3 B. L. R., App., 123, s. c. • Mirza Nadir Beg v. Muddurram, 2 W. R., Act X, 2. • Unopoorna Dossee v. Radha Mohun Pattro, 19 W. R., 95. management. The zemindars of Bengal Proper were not slow to follow the example set them, and immediately began to dispose of their zemindaries in a similar manner. Permanent under-tenures, known as putnee tenures, were created in large numbers, and extensive tracts were leased out on long terms. By the year 1819, permanent alienations of the kind described had been so extensively effected, that they were formally legalized by Regulation VIII of that year, and means afforded to the zemindar of recovering arrears of rent from his putneedars almost identical with those by which the demands of Government were enforced against himself. The practice of granting such under-tenures has steadily continued, until at the present day, with the putnee and subordinate tenures in Bengal Proper and the farming system of Behar, but a small proportion of the whole permanently-settled area remains in the direct possession of the zemindars. In these alienations the zemindars have made far better terms for themselves than the Government was able to make for itself in 1793. It has rarely happened that a putnee, or even a lease for a term of years, has been otherwise than on payment of a bonus, which has discounted the contingency of many years' increased rents. It is a system by which, in its adoption by the zemindars, their posterity suffers, because it is clear that, if the bonus were not exacted, a higher rental could be pemanently obtained from the land. This consideration has not, however, had much practical weight with the landholders. And if gradual accession to the wealth and influence of sub-proprietors be a desirable thing in the interest of the community, the selfishness of the landholding class is not in this instance of it a subject for regret. LECTURE LECTURE "The process of subinfeudation described above has not terminated with the putneedars and ijaradars. Lower gradations of sub-tenures under them, called dur-putnees and dur-ijaras, and even further subordinate tenures, have been created in great numbers. And not unfrequently, especially where particular lands are required for the growth of special crops, such as indigo, superior holders have taken under-tenures from their own tenants. These tenures and under-tenures often comprise defined tracts of land; but a common practice has been to sub-let certain aliquot shares of the whole superior tenure, the consequence of which is that the tenants in any particular village of an estate now very usually pay their rents to two, or many more than two, different masters, so many annas in the rupee to each. It must be added that in many cases where an estate or tenure has been sub-let, the lessor has reserved certain portions, generally those immediately contiguous to his residence, in his own possession. These he may cultivate by keeping ryots upon them, or, especially if he be a European indigo-planter, by hired labour. "All the under-tenures in Bengal have not, however, been created since the Permanent Settlement in the manner above described. Dependent talooks, ganties, howalas, and other similar fixed and transferable undertenures existed before the Settlement. Their permanent character was practically recognised at the time of the Settlement, and has at any rate since been confirmed by lapse of time. "In addition to all these tenures, the country is dotted over with small plots of land held revenue-free, the large majority of them having been granted by former Governments, or zemindars under those Governments, as religious |