X. endowments,-grants which have since been recognised LECTURE and confirmed by the English Government. "The general provisions of the Regulations of 1793 were in favour of the tenant. The theory of the Permanent Settlement was to give to all under-holders, down to the ryots, the same security of tenure as against the zemindars, which the zemindar had as against the Government. Sub-holders of talooks and other divisions under the zemindars were recognised and protected in their holdings, subject to the payment of the established dues. As respects the ryots, the main provisions were these: all extra cesses and exactions were abolished, and the zemindars were required to specify in writing the original rent payable by each ryot at the pergunnah or established rates. If any dispute arose regarding the rates to be so entered, the question was to be determined in the Civil Court of the zillah in which the lands were situated, according to the rates established in the pergunnah for lands of the same description and quality as those respecting which the dispute arose.' It was further provided that no zemindar should have power to cancel the leases except on the ground that they had been obtained by collusion at rates below the established rates, and that the resident ryots should always be entitled to renew pottahs at these rates. In fact fixity of tenure and fixity of rent-rates were secured to the ryots by law. It has already been pointed out that provision was made for canoongoes and putwaris, an object of whose appointment was declared to be 'to prevent oppression of the persons paying rent.' On behalf of the ryots it was a record of rights only that was wanting. The status that was designed for the tenantry was, however, much impaired, and in great part X. LECTURE destroyed, by the great powers subsequently given to the zemindars under the old huftum (seventh) and punjum (fifth) Regulations with a view to enable them to realise their rents. Under the huftum process (Regulation VII of 1799), the person of the ryot could be seized in default; under the punjum process (Regulation V of 1812) his property could be distrained; and in either case the proceedings commenced by what has been described as a strong presumption, equivalent to a knock down blow, against the ryot. The whole Rent Law was rescinded by Act X of 1859. The law of 1859 reduced the powers exercised by zemindars themselves, while it increased the grounds of enhancement and afforded the remedy of a summary process before Deputy Collectors, who were, however, often very insufficiently qualified. Rent suits are now transferred to the Civil Courts; they are better tried, and the rights of the ryots are more respected than they were; but, on the other hand, there are now good grounds of complaint that there is difficulty in quickly realising undisputed rents by legal process.' And I may add the following extracts':-"When all intermediate (even to the very lowest) interests became rights of property in land, not only could the owner of any such interest carve it as a subject of property into other interests, by encumbering or alienating within the limits of the right, but even his ownership itself might be of that complex heterogeneous kind, which is seen in Hindoo jointparcenary. "Let us look more nearly at the first side of this proposi tion. Remembering that a middle tenure or interest below 'From Rustic Bengal, by J. B. P., in the Calcutta Review for 1874. the revenue-paying zemindar resembles the primary zemindary, and is essentially the right, on payment of the proper jamma to a superior holder, to make collections from the cultivators of land, and to take the jummas from subordinate holders within a specified area, we see that as soon as the tenure is converted into a proprietary right, there must almost necessarily be a constant tendency to the creation of minor tenures. The owner of the smallest and lowest tenure is severed from the land itself by the customary occupation of the ryots, and ryottee-tenures, if there are any; indeed, the ryot holdings contain more of that which goes to constitute the English idea of land property than do the middle tenures, although it is not always easy to draw the line which separates the two. The middle tenure of every degree is thus in a great measure an account-book matter, and is very completely represented by the jummabandi paper. If the owner of such a property desires to benefit a child, or a family connexion, he can do so by making him a mukerreree grant in some form of a portion of his collections. It would be no easy matter to describe fully the various shapes which such a grant is capable of taking. It may cover a part of a village only, or a whole village, or many villages (according to the circumstances of the grantor and the transaction), and may convey the right to take the rents, dues, and jummas within that area by entireties; or it may convey the right to take a fractional part only of them; or again, it may convey the entireties for some villages, and fractional parts for others, and so on. Most frequently the tenure of the grantor himself amounts only to a right to a fractional share of the rents, &c., and then his grant will pass a fraction of a fraction. But not only may a tenure-holder make a grant LECTURE LECTURE Enumeration of sub-tenures. of this nature to some one whom he desires to benefit, he may do the like to a stranger in consideration of a bonus or premium. Again, he may do so with the view to ensure to himself, in the shape of the rent reserved on the subject of grant, the regular receipt of money wherewith to pay his own jumma. Or he may, by way of affording security for the repayment of a loan of money made to him, temporarily assign to the lender under a zar-i-peshgi ticca his tenure-right of making collections. In these or similar modes, the Bengalee tenure-holder, landed proprietor, or zemindar (however he may be designated) is obliged to deal with his interest when he wants to raise money, or to confer a benefit; and it is obvious that in each instance (excepting that of out and out sale of the entirety of his interest, to which he rarely has recourse, if he can avoid it), he creates a fresh set of proprietary rights." It is not possible to give any exhaustive account of these innumerable under-tenures: and in many cases what is called a tenure has no distinctive feature; and the name it bears is given, not on account of any peculiarity in the nature of the holding itself, but to indicate the kind of land cultivated or the crop produced, or the mode in which rent is paid. Thus we have (1) sali land, land wholly submerged during the rains; (2) suna land, not so submerged; (3) nakdi or neckdy land, of which rent is paid in cash at a certain rate for the beegah; (4) bhaoli land, of which rent is paid in kind, the rent being a share of the produce; (5) bhiti, raised house-site land; (6) uthbandi or ootbundee, in which the ryot pays for so much of his holding as he actually cultivates. These Rustic Bengal, by J. B. P., in the Calcutta Review for 1874. Premanund Ghose v Shoorendronath Roy, 20 W. R., 399. names are frequently met with as names of tenures; whereas several of them are not so much indicative of any peculiarity of tenure as of the kind of land held, and the mode of paying rent. This will appear more clearly from an enumeration of some of the various so-called tenures. Thus we have ausat or ousut, a name used in Backergunge to denote a subordinate talook; and nim (or neem) ousut, a sub-division of an ousut talook:1 ihtimam, a name given to small talooks in Chittagong, and formerly used in Burdwan and Rajshahye: howala, a Backergunge name for a small talook; and nim howala, a half howala." We have mention also of ousut howalas, a general name for tenures intermediate between those of the zemindar and the ryot; and of bye-howalas, or sub-divisions of a nim howala.5 Again, a tenure subordinate to a howala is called a zimma. There is a tenure called tashkisi zimma, held upon payment of the current rates of the district. In Rungpore we find a tenure called upanchaki, a name said to be derived from a cess of one-fifth; it is apparently a mokurreree istemrari tenure.7 So also the surbarakaree tenures of Cuttack, which are permanent and hereditary, and, with ' Mahomed Kadur v. Puddomala, 2 W. R., 185. Juggut Chunder Roy v. Ramnarain Bhuttacharjee, 1 W. R., 126. Madhub Chunder Ghose v. Nilkant Shaha Roy, 2 W. R., 42. Doorga Soonderee Debia v. Dinobundhoo Kyburto Doss, 8 W. R., 475. 3 Mahomed Kadur v. Puddomala, 2 W. R., 185. Doorga Churn Kur Sircar v. Anund Moyee Dabia, 3 W. R., 127. 'Huree Churn Bose v. Meharoonissa Bibee, 7 W. R., 318. 5 Ruttun Monee Dabee v. Kumolakant Talookdar, 12 W. R., 364. Baboo Gopal Lall Thakoor v. Teluck Chunder Rai, 10 Moore's I. A., 185. 7 See Madhub Janah v. Rajkishen Mookerjee, 7 W. R., 96. Shib Kumar Toti v. Kali Prasad Sen, 1 B. L. R., A. C., 167. LECTURE |