Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub
[blocks in formation]

then, in order to maintain his plea of exemption, show that the lands were rent-free before 1790.1

A dependent putneedar (shikamee) can resume invalid lakhiraj within his putnee. But the manager of a religious endowment, to which the zemindar has granted the profits of a certain number of villages after paying revenue, cannot resume invalid lakhiraj within the limits of the grant: that right remains with the zemindar. After resumption of a grant made before 1790, the zemindar is entitled to rent but not to possession of the land. It has been held that resumption by Government does not destroy under-tenures; but the under-tenants can be compelled to pay the assessment in addition to their rent, or to give up their tenures.5 This however must be taken to be subject to the ordinary limitations of the zemindar's power of enhancing the rents of his tenants. Resumption suits were comparatively rare

LECTURE
XII.

In the matter of Mudhoosoodhun Chuckladar, S. D. A. (1853), 365. Parbati Charan Mookerjee v. Rajkrishna Mookerjee, B. L. R., Supp. Vol., 162. Maharaja Dheeraj Raja Mahatab Chund Bahadoor v. The Bengal Government, 4 Moore's I. A., 466 at p. 497. Hurryhur Mookhopadhya v. Madub Chunder Baboo, 14 Moore's I. A., 152. Omesh Chunder Roy v. Dukhina Soondery Debia, W. R., F. B., 95; 8 B. L. R., 566, s. c.

2 Rao Ram Shunker Raee v. Moulvee Syud Ahmad, S. D. A. (1848), 234. In the matter of Rajkishore Race, S. D. A. (1849), 66. Rajkishore Raee v. Soomer Mundle, S. D. A. (1850), 498.

3 Nobinchunder Roy Chowdhry v. Pearee Khanum, 3 W. R., 143.

4

Mugnee Ram Chowdhry v. Baboo Gunesh Dutt Singh, W. R., (1864), 275.

5 Fuzal Banoo v. Azeezunnissa Beebee, 3 W. R., 72, overruling Mohunt Sheodass v. Bibi Ikram, S. D. A. (1850), 167. Annundmoye Chowdharain v. Ramkunth Sein, S. D. A. (1860), 660. Pratap Narayan Mookerjee v. Madhu Sudan Mookerjee, 8 B. L. R., 197. Mussamat Farzhara Banu v. Mussamat Azizunnissa Bibi, B. L. R., Supp. Vol., 175.

LECTURE
XII.

[blocks in formation]

before 1848, but an impetus was given to such suits in that year and again in 1855. The zemindars before 1848 seldom sought to dispossess the holders of invalid lakhiraj, there being little competition for land.'

I have already described the various kinds of tenure included under the head lakhiraj. It remains to bring down the law to the present time. In order to sustain a claim to an hereditary lakhiraj tenure, the claimant must prove a grant before 12th August 1765, and possession taken thereunder, or enjoyment of the lands as lakhiraj and hereditary at and since that period."

With regard to royal grants, it has been held that a jageer, according to ancient usage, was only a life tenure." A grant of a jageer is a grant of the Government rights; and it has been held that the jageerdar must allow the zemindar malikana. A jageer in Chota Nagpore granted on an hereditary tenure for military services has been held to be resumable by the zemindar on failure of lineal heirs of the grantee. The zemindar in this case appears to have resumed such grants as he pleased, before the British rule: and resumption for want of heirs was found to be customary in that district. A fouj serinjam grant, or grant for military services, was held not resumable by Government

1 Sonatan Ghose v. Moulvi Abdul Farar, B. L. R., Supp. Vol., 109, at pp. 114, 143.

2 Maharaja Dheeraj Raja Mahatab Chund Bahadoor v. The Bengal Government, 4 Moore's I. A., 467, at p. 497.

3 Collector of Bareilly v. Martindell, 2 Sel. Rep., 188.

Moohummud Ismail Jemadar v. Rajah Balunjee Surrun, 3 Sel. Rep., 345, a Cuttack case.

• Thakoorain Mussamut Roopnath Konwur v. Maharajah Juggunnath Sahee Deo, 6 Sel. Rep., 133.

[blocks in formation]

so long as the holder did not refuse to perform the services.1 A muddudmash grant to a person " and other fakeers" has been held to create an hereditary tenure. A grant of land as pudangha (water for washing the feet) made to a mohunt is perpetual.3

LECTURE
XII.

With respect to lands held upon service tenures, there Lands held upon service has been considerable conflict as to the circumstances under tenures. which they are resumable; particularly in the case of ghatwallee tenures. It has been held that the service need not be performed by the holders of the tenures in person, but they must be responsible for its performance.1 And it has been held that the rent of a service jageer cannot be enhanced before resumption; since the jageerdar is entitled in such a case to be relieved from the services.5 With respect to the right to resume, it was held in several cases that the zemindar could resume upon default in performing the services, or if the holder was dismissed,

Sparrow v. Tanajee Rao Raja Sirke, 2 Borr., 501, and Morley's Digest, 404. See Beema Shunkur v. Jamasjee Shaporjee, 5 W. R., P. C., 121, at p. 122. See as to altamgha enams and amaram grants, Unide Rajaha Raje Bommarauze Bahadur v. Premmasamy Venkatadry Naidoo, 7 Moore's I. A., 128, at p. 147. See as to a jaidad jageer, Forrester v. Secretary of State for India, 12 B. L. R., 120.

* Shah Uzeezoollah v. The Collector of Sheharanpore,4 Sel. Rep., 213. See for instances of altumgha grants by firmans followed by perwannahs, Mussamut Qadira v. Shah Kubeer-ood-deen Ahmed, 3 Sel. Rep., 407; Jewun Doss Sahoo v. Shah Kubeer-ood-deen, 2 Moore's I. A., 390, at p. 408.; of a muddudmash grant for similar purposes, Bibee Kuneez Fatima v. Bibee Saheba Jan, 8 W. R., 313. As to polliams, see Naragunty Lutchmeedavamah v. Vengama Naidoo, 9 Moore's I. A., 66; The Collector of Madura v. Veeracamoo Ummal, 9 Moore's I. A., 446. For a cuttoogootaga tenure, see Vencataswara Yettiapah Naicker v. Alagoo Moothoo Servagaren, 8 Moore's I. A., 327.

3 Collector of Bundelkund v. Churun Das Byragee, 3 Sel. R., 415. Shib Lall Sing v. Moorad Khan, 9. W. R., 126.

Nilmoney Singh Deo v. Ramgolal Singh Chowdhry, Marshall, 518.

[blocks in formation]

XII.

LECTURE although the holding was hereditary. In a subsequent case it was held that this right exists only when the continued performance of the service is the condition of the grant, and not merely something entering into the motive or consideration for it. In this case the grant was of a jageer before the Permanent Settlement, which provided for the jageerdars maintaining a body of men to keep off elephants, but did not make that service a condition of the continuance of the tenure; past services being also part of the consideration of the grant. The grantees had held without objection from the zemindar long after the necessity for keeping off elephants had ceased. The Government had assessed the zemindar for the lands, and he in turn sought to assess the jageerdars on the ground that the services referred to were no longer required. It was held he was not entitled to assess the lands. The zemindar seems to have been assessed for these lands as chakeran under Regulation VIII of 1793, section 41. The chowkeedary lands in the zemindary of Burdwan were annexed to the zemindary under section 41 of Regulation VIII of 1793, but were not assessed: they were included in order to be a security for the revenue but were not assessed, because the zemindar had not the full

Bhugoo Rae v. Azim Alee Khan, S. D. A. (1858), 84. Nilmoney Singh Deo v. Ramgolal Singh Chowdhry, Marshall, 518. Hurreenarain Ghose v. Musst. Urnoo Dassee, S. D. A. (1857), 786. Moharaja Sreeshchunder Rae v. Madhub Mochee, S. D. A. (1857), 1772. Tekayet Jugomohun Singh v. Raja Leelanund Singh, S. D. A. (1858), 1471. Ram Chunder Chuckerbutty v. Gopaul Mirda, S. D. A. (1860), Vol. II, 315. Chunder Nath Roy v. Bheem Sirdar, W. R. (1864), Act X, 37. Ram Gopal Chuckerbutty v. Chunder Nath Sein, 10 W. R., 289.

2 Forbes v. Meer Mahomed Tuquee, 5 B. L. R., 529, at p. 543; 13 Moore's I. A., 438, s. c.; 14 W. R., P. C., 28, s. c.

[blocks in formation]

benefit of them. The zemindar claiming to resume these lands was held not entitled to do so; but was held entitled to appoint the chowkeedar, who was bound to render the customary service to the zemindar."

LECTURE

XII.

tenures.

With regard to ghatwallee tenures, those in Kurruckpore Ghatwallee have been held hereditary, the sunnud containing the terms mukurreree istemrari, and the lands having long descended in the family but where these words are not used they have been held resumable ; and this is said to hold whether the services were no longer required, or the ghatwals neglected to perform them. And it has been further held that these tenures cannot be sold in execution of a decree without the zemindar's consent.5 Ghatwallee holdings have also been considered indivisible:6 and a woman may be a ghatwal. Sometimes ghatwals paid a small quit-rent as well as rendering service. These are

1 Joykissen Mookerjee v. The Collector of East Burdwan, 10 Moore's I. A., 16.

* Munrunjun Singh v. Rajah Leelanund Singh, 3 W. R., 84. Rajah Lilanund Singh Bahadoor v. Thakur Munorunjun Singh, 13 B. L. R.,

124.

3 Rajah Neelanund Singh v. Surwan Sing, 5 W. R., 290, 292; 2 In. Jur., N. S., 149, s. c.; 9 Sev. Rep., 311, s. c.

Tekayet Jugmohun Singh v. Raja Neelanund Singh, S. D. A. (1857), 1812.

* Sartuckchunder Dey v. Bhugut Bharutchunder Singh, S. D. A. (1853), 900. Rajah Leelanund Singh v. Doorgabutty, W. R. (1864), 249. Kustoora Koomaree v. Binoderam Sein, 4 W. R. Misc., 5. Lalla Gooman Singh v. Grant, 11 W. R., 292.

• Mussamut Kustoora Koomaree v. Monohur Deo, W. R. (1864), 39, at p. 42. Hurlal Singh v. Jorawun Singh, 6 Sel. R., 169.

'Mussamut Kustoora Koomaree v. Monohur Deo, W. R. (1864), 39. As to the descent of these tenures to the eldest son, see Mussamut Teetoo Koonwuree v. Surwun Singh, S. D. A. (1853), 765. See as to ghatwallee and service tenures, Rajah Leelanund Singh Bahadoor v. Government of Bengal, 6 Moore's I. A., 101; 4 W. R., P. C., 77, s. c.

« ПредишнаНапред »