« ПредишнаНапред »
vision is repealed as obsolete by Act XVI of 1874. Finally, LECTURE this Regulation was not to be construed so as to prohibit disherison when not contrary to law.' Under this Regulation 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 custom, and not merely as the usage of a particular estate or family."
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
S. 6. · Rajah Deedar Hossein v. Ranee Zuboor-oon-Nissa, 2 Moore's I. A., 441.
• Rummun Sing 0. Maharajah Eshree Pershad, 2 Agra R., 144. Baboo Prosono Coomar Tagore v. Rammohun Doss, S. D. A. (1855), 14.
s Muneer-uddeen v. Mahomed Ali, 6 W. R., 67. Nuddear Chand Poddar o. Modhoosoodun Dey Poddar, 7 W. R., 153. Muneerooddeen Mojoomdar v. Parbutty Churn Ghose, 15 W.R., 121.
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 o. 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.
? Nobeen Kishen Mookerjee v. Shib Pershad Pattuck, 8 W. R., 96. Bharut Roy v. Gunga Narain Mohapattur, 14 W. R., 211.
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. 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.
* Sonaoolah o. Ranee Rajeshurree, S. D. A. (1857), 492. Thakoorchund Banerjee 0. Shurnumnissa Khatoon, ib., 808. Nubo Coomar Ghose o. Kishen Chunder Banerjee, W. R. (1864), Act X, 112. Gudadhur Banerjee o. Khetter Mohun Surmah, 7 W. R., 460. Huro Mohun Mookerjee o. Goluck Chunder Sircar, 12 W. R., 265. Bharut Roy o. Gunga Narain Mohapatur, 14 W. R., 211.
• Nobeen Kishen Mookerjee v. Shib Pershad Pattuck, 9 W. R., 161. Dhunput Singh Roy Bahadoor u. Vellayet Ali, ib., 211. Sadhan Chunder Bose v. Gurucharan Bose, 8 B. L. R., 6 (note).
• Raghub Chunder Banerjee o. Brojonath Koondoo Chowdhree, 14 W. R., 489.
s Fatima Khatun v. The Collector of Tipperah, 8 B. L. R., 4 (note).
6 Petumburee Dossea v. Chuckoo Ram Singh, S. D. A. (1846), 372. Anundlall Mookerjee v. Kalika Persad Misser, 12 B. L. R., 489 (note). Luckbinarain Mitter v. Khettro Pal Singh Roy, 13 B. L. R., 146,
LECTURE by recognising an unregistered transfer he affirms the
tenancy. Such recognition may be inferred from the receipt of rent; and before Act X of 1859 came into operation receipt of rent for a portion of a ryot's holding was held & sufficient recognition of a transfer of that portion as a separate holding. And where the landlord refused an application by the plaintiff for registration of a transfer of a tenure, but gave the plaintiff a pottah, and afterwards brought a suit against the registered tenant for arrears of rent, and at a sale under a decree in such suit bought the tenure for Rs. 2, it was held that he took nothing as against the plaintiff under such sale, independently of the question whether his purchase was not fraudulent.”
"Sarkies v. Kali Coomar Roy, W. R. (1864), Act X, 98. Mooktokashee Dassia v. Brojundro Coomar Roy, 3 W. R., Act X, 156. Meah Jan Munshi v. Kurrunamaye Debi, 8 B. L. R., 1. Allender v. Dwarkanath Roy, 15 W. R., 320. See also Chunder Coomar Roy o. Pearee Lal Banerjee, 6 W. R., 190. Abdool Kurreem v. Munsoor Ali, 12 W. R., 396.
Mojon Mollo o. Dula Gazi Kulan, 12 B. L. R., 492 (note).
THE PUTNEE TALOOK-REMEDIES FOR RECOVERY OF
The putnee talook-Remedies for recovery of revenue-Imprisonment-Sale of
land—Dispossession-Attachment of land-Personal liability-Interest on arrears-Sale of estate or tenure-Regulation XI of 1822-Act XII of 1841 and subsequent Acts—Definition of arrear-Payment or tender of arrearDeposit of arrear by person other than defaulting proprietor-Exemption of certain estates from sale-Annulment of sale-Finality of sale-Registration of shares of an estate—Resale on default by purchaser to pay purchasemoney–Registration of talookdary and other similar tenures-Sale of tenures
not being estates-Avoidance of incumbrances. BEFORE proceeding to consider the remedies for the non- The putnea
talook. payment of revenue and rent, it may be useful to give some account of the putnee talook. The putnee talook is nothing more than a perpetual lease of a talook or zemindary. Regulation VIII of 1819 deals with this tenure, which had its origin on the estate of the Rajah of Burdwan. The Regulation recites that by the rules of the Permanent Settlement, the proprietors of revenue-paying estates, that is, the individuals answerable to Government for the revenue then assesed on the different mehals, were declared entitled to make any arrangements for the leasing of their lands in talooks or otherwise which they might deem most conducive to their interests, subject, by Regulation XLIV of 1793, to two limitations : first, that the jumma or rent should not be fixed for more than ten years; and second, that in case of sale for arrears of revenue, such leases or arrangements should stand cancelled from the day of sale. The preamble then recites the repeal of the limitation to ten years by Regulation V of 1812, section 2; and that by