Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

LECTURE
X.

[blocks in formation]

The

the consent of the zemindar, transferable.' Bekhbirt is a name given to talooks sometimes of considerable size in Sarun. A gantie or ganthe is an hereditary tenure at a fixed rent: the name is said to be derived from a Sanscrit word meaning a knot or engagement. Birt land is held for religious purposes or by Brahmins free of revenue, and it is held under a heritable istemrari tenure sometimes known as birt ijara. There is a tenure in Sylhet called mirasdaree also of an istemrari heritable nature.* mulgenies of Canara are perpetual tenures usually granted on payment of a fine, and are transferable and hereditary, reverting however to the landlord on failure of heirs. I have referred to these and other tenures of Southern India on various occasions by way of illustration, but as these tenures are not known under the same names in Bengal, it is unnecessary to give them in detail. In some parts, as in Colgong, there is a right called boro ajwain, which is an hereditary right to sow on land in which the sowers have no property, provided the seed was sown before a plough should have been put into the soft mud; also to all grass and other crops which should spring up in the month of Kartick, and if necessary to re-sow in that month; to burn jungle in Assar; and to sow on all deposit or mud before a plough could pass over the ground. This right prevailed in certain new formations near the Ganges, but it

1 Doorjodhun Doss v. Chooya Daye, 1 W. R., 322. Sudanundo Mytee v. Nowruttun Mytee, 16 W. R., 290; 8 B. L. R., 280, s. c. Kasheenath Punee v. Lakhmanee Pershad Patnaik, 19 W. R., 99.

2

Bipinbehari Chowdhry v. Ram Chandra Roy, 5 B. L. R., 235.
Morley's Digest, Gloss.

For most of the above tenures, see Whinfield's Landlord and
Tenant, 5.

5 Timmarsa Puranik v. Badiya, 2 Bombay H. C. R., 73 (note).

[blocks in formation]

was not confined to the first season during which such formations existed.1

Leases and farms are also known under various names, as izara or ijara, and thika (from thik, exact), a lease at a certain amount of rent: a holder of this kind may have no land under his own cultivation within the district leased to him, but only farm the rents." Kutkina is a sub-lease by a farmer or under-farmer, who again may have no direct connexion with the soil. Below these again are dur-ijaras and durkutkinas, and so on in a line of subinfeudation which is apparently without end. Moostajir is another name for a farmer.*

Rent-paying land is called jamai land. Frequently the rent is half the produce: we have seen that this is so in the khamar lands in many cases. The tenants of the class of dihkasht or khoodkasht, and those called adhiar and chikli, pay in this way; so also the dhotar, who holds plough lands in Purneah, and the under-tenants of ryots. These latter are known under the name of kurpha; in Rungpore they are known as chukani ryots: other names are prajali, shikmi, and petao ryots. There is a class of ryots in Behar called ashrafs or gentlemen who hold at low rents. An autbundi ryot (from aut, a plough) pays so much a plough-land. Both the ryots and the lands are

'Records of Criminal Appeal, No. 57 of 1871, in the Calcutta High Court.

* Leela Dhur v. Bhugwunt, 3 N. W. R., 39. Baij Nath v. Munglee, 2 N. W. R., 411.

Surwan Singh, Petitioner, 2 In. Jur., N. S., 149. Rajah Leelanand Singh v. Surwan Singh, 9 Sev., 311.

• Whinfield's Landlord and Tenant, 13. Baboo Dhunput Singh v. Gooman Singh, 11 Moore's I. A., 462. Government v. Dindayal Misir, 5 Sel. R., 118.

• Whinfield's Landlord and Tenant, 17.

LECTURE
X.

[blocks in formation]

X.

LECTURE designated rather according to the class to which they belong than to the tenure upon which the lands are held by the ryots or tenants.1

Enhancement

and abatement of rent.

Different tenures prevailed in different parts of the country. It is impossible with our present information to give the details of the various local tenures, and many of those which have come under notice do not present any features specially characteristic: we have already seen that the main distinction turns in many cases upon the mode in which rent is paid and upon the hereditary or transferable character of the holdings: so that for our present purpose it is very possible that fuller details might not add much to our information as to the specific varieties of tenure prevailing in Bengal.

I have now given some account of the relation between the zemindar and the holders of subordinate interests in the land. I proceed to give some further details upon the subject. And first as to the amount of rent: we have seen generally what was its amount, and the mode of payment; we have now to consider when it could be increased. We have already discussed this subject to some extent in treating of the talookdar's position: but I may here notice a few of the cases upon that part of the subject. The main principle laid down with respect to talookdars is that they are not to be enhanced to the same extent as ryots, but only so as to bring their rent up to that of the neighbouring talookdars, and so as to leave

See for details Whinfield's Landlord and Tenant, 70 to 72.

2 See Regulations IV of 1794 and X of 1800.

For the general principles as to enhancement, see Radhika Chowdhrain v. Bamasundari Dasi, 4 B. L. R., P. C., 8, at p. 10; 13 W. R., P. C., 11, s. c.

[blocks in formation]

X.

them something after paying their rent.' This margin of LECTURE profit according to the cases should be from one-third to onesixth of the gross rent. Similarly, it has been held that a howaladar cannot enhance his nim-howaladar to the same extent as his own rent has been enhanced, but only up to the ordinary rate for similar land. We have also discussed the nature of holdings at a fixed rent. Again, we shall consider in connexion with the Sale Laws the statutory power of a purchaser at a sale for arrears of revenue to enhance the rent. It only remains to notice those cases which are not included in any of the foregoing categories. And these may be generally described as cases in which the holding has commenced since the Permanent Settlement, and is not protected by contract or custom. There are however holdings, which, although they may have commenced since the Permanent Settlement, are in a more advantageous position. Thus, section 4 of Act VIII of 1869 (B.C.) provides, with regard to ryots, that whenever in any suit under that Act it shall be proved that the rent at which land has been held by a ryot has not been changed

1 Dyaram v. Bhobindur Naraen, 1 Sel. R., 139. Gopee Mohun Thakoor v. Radha Mohun Ghose, 2 Sel. R., 17. Jadub Chunder Haldar v. Ishoree Lushkur, W. R. (1864), Act X, 74. Huro Soonduree Chowdhrain v. Anund Mohun Ghose Chowdhry, 7 W. R., 459. Mohima Chunder Dey v. Gooroo Dass Sein, 7 W. R., 285. Soorasoonderee Dabea v. Gopal Lall Thakoor, 19 W. R., 143. Baboo Dhunput Singh v. Gooman Singh, 11 Moore's I. A., 433, at p. 468; 9 W. R., P. C., 3, s. c. Khajah Assanoolah v. Obhoy Chunder Roy, 13 Moore's I. A., 317, at p. 324.

245.

* Gouree Pershad Doss v. Ranee Shurno Moyee, 6 W. R., Act X, 41. Munee Kurnika Chowdhry v. Anund Moyee Chowdhry, 10 W. R., Fifteen per cent. according to Rani Swarnamayi v. Gauri Prasad Dass, 3 B. L. R., A. C., 270; and ten per cent. and charges according to Punchanund v. Hurgopal Bhadery, 1 Sel. R., 145.

3

Mirtenjae Mookerjee v. Manick Chunder Dass, 7 Sel. R., 430.

LECTURE
X.

[blocks in formation]

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. And when a
ryot has held lands from the Permanent Settlement at
fixed rates, he is entitled to a pottah at those rates by sec-
tion 3. By sections 16 and 17 of the same Act, the same
presumption as to holding from the Permanent Settlement
is extended to talooks and other tenures, the rent of which,
if dependent talooks or intermediate interests of a perma-
nent and transferable kind, cannot be enhanced. Ryots
having a right of occupancy are not liable to enhancement of
the rent previously paid by them, except on some one of the
following grounds: first, that the rate of rent paid by such ryot
is below the prevailing rate payable by the same class of ryots
for land of a similar description and with similar advan-
tages in the places adjacent; second, that the value of the
produce or the productive powers of the land have been
increased otherwise than by the agency or at the expense
of the ryot; third, that the quantity of land held by the
ryot has been proved by measurement to be greater than
the quantity for which rent has previously been paid by
him.' The Great Rent Case explains the mode in which
the enhanced rents should be ascertained, having regard to
the provisions of the Act which enact that ryots having
rights of occupancy, but not holding at fixed rates as
described in the two preceding sections, are entitled to receive
pottahs at fair and equitable rates; the rates previously
paid being deemed fair and equitable until proof to the

1 Act X of 1859, s. 17. Act VIII of 1869 (B.C)., s. 18.
2 B. L. R., Supp. Vol., 202. See Regulation V of 1812, ss. 7, 8.

« ПредишнаНапред »