Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub
[blocks in formation]

the assessment of any increase upon the lands of such dependent talookdars as were exempted from enhancement under Regulation VIII of 1793, section 51, clause 1 (this section also protects the pottah talookdars-Regulation VIII of 1793, section 19): nor by section 8 to prohibit actual proprietors from granting leases or pottahs to any person, not being a British subject or European, for any term of years or in perpetuity, for the erection of dwelling-houses, or buildings for carrying on manufactures, or for gardens or other purposes, and for offices for such houses or buildings. These provisions are now repealed as obsolete by Act XXIX of 1871. Under this Regulation a grant at a fixed rent would not be a void grant, but only void as to the fixed rent. And an engagement with a former proprietor to hold a talook in perpetuity as an independent talook at a fixed rent was as against a purchaser of the zemindary partly at an auction-sale for arrears of revenue, and partly privately, held good for a term of ten years, but not for the fixed rent." Regulation V of 1812, by section 2, repeals the prohibition against leases for more than ten years, and gives the proprietors of land liberty to lease for any period they may choose and in any form. This provision is explained by Regulation XVIII of 1812, section 2, to mean that, although the leases granted may be at any rent, and even in perpetuity, they cannot extend beyond the grantor's interest.3

LECTURE
X.

With regard to the succession to the zemindary, we have Succession to seen that in many cases primogeniture prevailed, especially

Morley's Digest, Vol. I, p. 410, pl. 38.

• Ib., 411, pl. 40, and see p. 418, pl. 30.

3 See Regulation XIV of 1812 and Act XVI of 1842 (repealed as obsolete by Act VIII of 1868).

zemindaries.

LECTURE
X.

[blocks in formation]

in the larger zemindaries.' And it is clear that the State
exercised some control over the succession up to the time
of the Permanent Settlement. Regulation XI of 1793
deals with this matter; and recites that by custom "ori-
ginating in considerations of financial convenience" some
of the most extensive zemindaries descended by primogeni-
ture that such a custom is repugnant both to Hindoo and
Mahomedan laws, and subversive of the rights of the other
members of the family, who would otherwise be entitled to
share in these as in all other estates: that it likewise hin-
ders improvements "from the proprietors of those large
estates not having the means, or being unable to bestow
the attention, requisite for bringing into cultivation the
extensive tracts of waste land comprised in them." And
the financial obstacles to division being now removed by
the Permanent Settlement and the rules for division of
zemindaries, it is enacted that, after the 1st of July 1794,
if a zemindar, independent talookdar, or other actual
proprietor of land shall die without a will, or a written or
verbal disposition of his property, it shall go to his heirs.'
These heirs may continue to hold jointly or may have a
division of the estate under Regulation XXV of 1793, and
any two or more of them may hold their shares jointly.*
When the holding is joint a manager is required to be
appointed, under Regulation VIII of 1793; but this pro-

1

See the zemindar's position discussed-Rajah Lilanund Sing Babadoor v. Government of Bengal, 6 Moore's I. A., 101, at p. 108; and for an instance of primogeniture, see Rawut Urjun Sing v. Rawut Ghunsiam Sing, 5 Moore's I. A., 169.

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

Finally, Lecture

vision is repealed as obsolete by Act XVI of 1874.
this Regulation was not to be construed so as to prohibit
disherison when not contrary to law. Under this Regula-
tion it has been held that the zemindary must descend as
prescribed, notwithstanding a family custom not to divide
the estate. Regulation X of 1800 provides that in the
jungle mehals of zillah Midnapore, and in other districts in
which primogeniture prevails, Regulation XI of 1793 shall
not apply. This Regulation therefore excludes from the
operation of Regulation XI of 1793 those districts in which
the custom of primogeniture prevails as a general local cus-
tom, and not merely as the usage of a particular estate or
family."

X.

under-tenures.

We have already discussed the extent to which some of Transfer of the subordinate holdings are transferable. The result is that a transfer by a common ryot of his holding, even if he has acquired a right of occupancy, is not good as against the zemindar without his consent. Such a transfer may be held to be an abandonment of the holding, and provision is now made by Act X of 1859, section 19, and Act VIII of 1869 (B.C.), section 20, for relinquishment by a ryot of his holding, so as to escape further liability for rent, by giving a notice as prescribed by the Acts. Provi- Registration. sion is also made for the registration of transfers of subor

1 S. 6.

2 Rajah Deedar Hossein v. Ranee Zuhoor-oon-Nissa, 2 Moore's I. A., 441.

3 Ib.

Rummun Sing v Maharajah Eshree Pershad, 2 Agra R., 144. Baboo Prosono Coomar Tagore v. Rammohun Doss, S. D. A. (1855), 14. ' Muneer-uddeen v. Mahomed Ali, 6 W. R., 67. Nuddear Chand Poddar v. Modhoosoodun Dey Poddar, 7 W. R., 153. Muneerooddeen Mojoomdar v. Parbutty Churn Ghose, 15 W. R., 121.

LECTURE

X.

[blocks in formation]

dinate transferable tenures. Thus Act X of 1859, section 27, and Act VIII of 1869 (B.C.), section 26, enact that "all dependent talookdars and other persons possessing a permanent transferable interest in land, intermediate between the zemindar and the cultivator, are required to register, in the sheristah of the zemindar or superior tenant, to whom the rents of their talooks or tenures are payable, all transfers of such talooks or tenures, or portions of them, by sale, gift, or otherwise, as well as all successions thereto, and divisions among heirs in cases of inheritance." And the zemindar or superior tenant must register and give effect to such successions and divisions, and to such transfers when made in good faith but is not required to recognise any division or distribution of the rent; nor is such division or distribution valid and binding without the consent in writing of the zemindar or superior tenant. It has been held that the landlord is not bound under these sections to register a division of a tenure otherwise than among heirs, such tenure being already registered as undivided.'

The omission of registration does not invalidate the purchase of a tenure; and as the landlord need not take advantage of the absence of registration, so he may by his conduct, by taking rent for instance, estop himself from claiming that advantage. If the landlord elects to insist upon the absence of registration, he may sell the tenure for arrears in a suit against his tenant, but cannot eject an

1 Watson v. Ram Soonder Pandey, 3 W. R., Act X, 165. Watson v. The Collector of Rajshahye, 13 Moore's I. A., 161, at p. 175; 3 B. L. R., P. C., 48, at pp. 53, 54, s.c.

2 Nobeen Kishen Mookerjee v. Shib Pershad Pattuck, 8 W. R., 96. Bharut Roy v. Gunga Narain Mohapattur, 14 W. R., 211.

[blocks in formation]

X.

unregistered tenant. It is laid down as a general principle LECTURE that the zemindar need not look beyond the registered tenant, unless he has taken rent from an unregistered tenant, or otherwise recognised him; and when suing the registered tenant for arrears of rent under Regulation VIII of 1819, section 8, he need give no notice to the unregistered tenant. I shall hereafter discuss the provisions of Regulation VIII of 1819, the principles of which are applicable to the present subject. Here I may notice that if a putnee is registered in the name of only one co-sharer, the whole tenure may be sold for arrears of rent in a suit against that shareholder. So where the landlord sold for arrears of rent a tenure registered in the name of the owner's mother, the sale passed the rights of the owner; and under a subsequent purchase by the plaintiff of the owner's interest nothing passed.5 The landlord, in short, may treat a transfer without registration as a nullity, and may hold his registered tenant still liable for rent. But

'Nobeen Kishen Mookerjee v. Shib Pershad Pattuck, 8 W. R., 96. Kasheenath Puree v. Luchmonee Pershad Patnaik, 19 W. R., 99.

2 Sonaoolah v. Ranee Rajeshurree, S. D. A. (1857), 492. Thakoorchund Banerjee v. Shurnumnissa Khatoon, ib., 808. Nubo Coomar Ghose v. Kishen Chunder Banerjee, W. R. (1864), Act X, 112. Gudadhur Banerjee v. Khetter Mohun Surmah, 7 W. R., 460. Huro Mohun Mookerjee v. Goluck Chunder Sircar, 12 W. R., 265. Bharut Roy v. Gunga Narain Mohapatur, 14 W. R., 211.

Nobeen Kishen Mookerjee v. Shib Pershad Pattuck, 9 W. R., 161. Dhunput Singh Roy Bahadoor v. Vellayet Ali, ib., 211. Sadhan Chunder Bose v. Gurucharan Bose, 8 B. L. R., 6 (note).

• Raghub Chunder Banerjee v. Brojonath Koondoo Chowdhree, 14 W. R., 489.

Fatima Khatun v. The Collector of Tipperah, 8 B. L. R., 4 (note). • Petumburee Dossea v. Chuckoo Ram Singh, S. D. A. (1846), 372. Anundlall Mookerjee v. Kalika Persad Misser, 12 B. L. R., 489 (note). Luckhinarain Mitter v. Khettro Pal Singh Roy, 13 B. L. R., 146.

« ПредишнаНапред »