YAKINUDDIN HAJI SIRAJUDDIN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh (Defendant) against the decree for Rs. 10,500, out of a claim of Rs. 15,000, passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Balaghat, in Civil Suit No. 11 -B of 1953, in favour of the Plaintiff Yakinuddin. The Plaintiff has filed a cross -objection for the balance of Rs. 4,500.

(2.) THE facts of the case are not in dispute. The Plaintiff took the trees detailed in the Schedule attached to the plaint for certain purposes from the proprietors Krishnarao and Khanderao on 29 -3 -1941 for a period of 10 years ending on 31 -7 -1952. This period was extended on 29 -7 -1943 upto 31 -7 -1955. The transactions were evidenced by 2 deeds which were duly registered. On the coming into force of the M.P. Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (I of 1951), on 31 -3 -1951, the State of Madhya Pradesh took possession of the trees. The Plaintiff, therefore, filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 15,000 as damages on account of the loss of income for the period 1 -4 -1951 to 31 -3 -1953. The grants were made, inter alia, for propagation and collection of lac, and it was the loss of income from this source that was claimed in the suit. The Court of trial, relying upon Firm C.J. Patel and Co. v. M.P. State 1953 NLJ 129 : AIR 1953 SC 108, held that the grants were binding upon the State and accordingly it awarded to the Plaintiff a decree for Rs. 10,500 as damages. The rest of the claim was disallowed. The only point that was urged before us was that in view of the subsequent decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Shantabai v. State of Bombay AIR 1958 SC 532, the decree cannot be maintained.

(3.) THERE is nothing in the Act to affect the validity of the several contracts and agreements. The Petitioners are neither proprietors within the meaning of the Act nor persons having any interest in the proprietary right through the proprietors. There is no provision in the Act which extinguishes their rights in favour of the State. What exactly is meant by a "proprietary right" under the revenue laws has been pointed out at page 217 of Volume I of Baden -Powell's Land Systems of British India, where he says: The first thing that will strike the student is the use of the term 'proprietary right' in these pages and in Indian Revenue Books generally. It does not occur in text -books on English law of jurisprudence. I presume that the use of such a phrase is due to the feeling that we rarely acknowledge anything like to complete unfettered right vested in any one person. The interest in the soil has come to be virtually shared between two or even more 'grades', the cause of which we just now discussed. It is true that, in many cases, only one person is called 'landlord' or 'actual proprietor', but his right is limited; the rest of the right, so to speak, is in the hands of the other grades, even though they are called 'tenants' or by some vague title such as 'tenure -holders'. In many cases, as we have seen, this division of right is accentuated by the use of terms like 'sub -proprietor' or 'proprietor of his holding'. 'The proprietary right' seems then a natural expression for the interest held by the landlord, when that interest -is not the entire 'bundle of rights' (which in the aggregate make up an absolute or complete estate) but only 'some' of them, the remainder being enjoyed by other persons.