« ПредишнаНапред »
so long as the holder did not refuse to perform the services. LECTURE 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 . 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. 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 Rajaba Raje Bommarauze Bahadur o. Premmasamy Venkatadry Naidoo, 7 Moore's I. A., 128, at p. 147. See as to a juidad jageer, Forrester o. 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 0. 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 0. Alagoo Moothoo Servagaren, 8 Moore's I. A., 327.
3 Collector of Bundelkund o. 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.
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
benefit of them. The zemindar claiming to resume these Lecture 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.'
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.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 0. 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 Munorunjún Singb, 13 B. L. R., 124.
• Rajah Neelanund Singh o. Surwan Sing, 5 W. R., 290, 292; 2 In. Jur., N. S., 149, s. C.; 9 Sev. Rep., 311, 8. C.
* Tekayet Jugmobun Singh v. Raja Neelanund Singh, S. D. A. (1857), 1812. . s 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.
6 Mussamut Kustoora Koomaree o. 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 o. Surwun Singh, S. D. A. (1853), 765. See as to ghatwallee and service tenures, Rajah Leelanund Singh Babadoor o. Government of Bengal, 6 Moore's I. A., 101; 4 W. R., P. C., 77, 8. C.
considered to have an hereditary tenure. It is not necessary that the sunnud should express that the holding is hereditary, if it has been so held for a sufficient time.
It has been held that a ghatwallee tenure ceases when, in consequence of the Government having made other provisions for Police, the services are no longer required. In this case the ghatwals were liable to dismissal for neglect of duty, and Government had never interfered in their appointment or dismissal of them. When ghatwallee lands have been assessed as part of a zemindary, the Government cannot resume or claim further revenue from the zemindar. But, on the other hand, it has been held that an auction-purchaser of the zemindary cannot resume on the suggestion that the services have ceased, at least if the Government has a joint interest with the zemindar in the continuance of the services and opposes the resumption. In this case the zemindars paid as revenue the same amount as the ghatwals paid as rent. It has been further held that even when the grant is upon condition of service, the zemindar cannot by dispensing with the
· Raja Lilanund Sing Babadoor o. The Government, 2 B. L. R., A. C., 114, at p. 122.
Baboo Kooldeep Narain Singh o. Mahadeo Singh, 6 W. R., 200 ; B. L. R., Supp. Vol., 559, s. C. Kooldeep Narain Singh 0. The Government, 11 B. L. R., 71; 14 Moore’s I. A., 247, s. c.
3 Rajah Neelanund Singh v. Nusseeb Singh, 6 W. R., 80. Rajah Leelanund Singh v. Kunhya Lall, 17 W. R., 315. Tekayet Jugomohun Singh o. Raja Leelanund Singh, S. D. A. (1857), 1812; s. c. on review, S. D. &. (1858), 1471. Raja Anundlal Deo o. Government, S. D. A. (1858), 1669.
* Rajah Lelanund Singh Bahadur 0. The Bengal Government, 6 Moore's I. A., 101; 4 W. R., P. C., 77, s. c.
Kooldeep Narain Singh v. The Government, 11 B.L. R., P. C., 71; 14 Moore's I. A., 247, s. c.
service put an end to the grant. This applies to all service tenures. And where the Government consented to dispense with the ghatwallee services as regarded the zemindar, and took from him instead additional revenue, it was held that nevertheless an auction-purchaser from the zemindar could not dispossess the ghatwals,- although the sunnud was of a date subsequent to the Permanent Settlement. This was in the Kurruckpore zemindary. But in the same zemindary when the appointment of ghatwals rested with the zemindar, it was held that the Government having dispensed with the ghatwallee services, the zemindar was not bound to make any fresh appointment.
The ghatwallee tenures of Beerbhoom have been the subject of legislation. Regulation XXIX of 1814, after reciting that those tenures are hereditary and subject to a fixed rent and services to be rendered to the zemindar, and that these rents have been recently adjusted and made payable direct to Government, enacts that the ghatwals shall not be ejected or their rent enhanced, so long as they observe their own obligations ;5 but that the tenure may be sold for arrears in the same way as other tenures, or transferred by the Governor-General in Council to some other person, the zemindar taking any increase of revenue
1 Baboo Koolodeep Narain Singh v. Mahadeo Singh, 6 W. R., 199, at p. 203. The Government of Bombay o. Damodbar Parmanandas, 5 Bom. H. C. R., A. C., 202.
? Raja Lillanund Singh Bahadur v. Thakur Munorunjun Singh, 13 B. L. R., 124, at p. 132.
3 Ib., p. 134. • Mahaboot Hossein v. Mussamut Putasoo Koomaree, i B. L. R., (A. C.), 120 ; 10 W. R., 179, 8. C. SS. 2.