RAJA RAJINDER CHAND Vs. NARAINI, ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Janki, a Brahmin, was an Adna malik of 128 kanals 9 malras of land in Tika Badholi Bhagor, Tappa Hathol, Tehsil Hamirpur. He died in 1934. Before the Revenue Officers Kanshi etc., claimed to succeed as collaterals of the deceased while Mst. Naraini claimed her right to succeed as his sister and Raja Rajinder Chand, Jagirdar of Nadaun claimed the land as ala malik. The mutation was sanctioned in favour of Kanshi etc., but on appeal it was sanctioned in favour of the ala malik. Thereafter in 1945 Mst. Naraini filed the present suit out of which this second appeal has arisen for possession of the land on the ground that she was as sister heir of Janki deceased. She impleaded the ala malik as well as the transferees from him and also the alleged collaterals as defendants. The plaintiff's claim was contested by all the three sets of defendants, but the trial Court rejected the claim of the collaterals and the transferees and they have not put forward their claim in this Court before me. The ala malik had contested the plaintiff's claim on the ground that she was not in fact the sister of the deceased and that in any case he was entitled to succeed under custom in preference to the sister. Both the courts gave a finding that the plaintiff was a sister of the deceased and this finding of fact has not been challenged before me. The trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit and the appeal of the Raja was dismissed by the District Judge, Hoshiarpur. The Raja has come to this Court in second appeal.

(2.) In this second appeal the contest is between the sister of the last male holder and the ala malik who claims to have a right to succession to adna malkiyat of Janki deceased in preference to his sister. Now, the ala malkiyat rights are not uniform and they differ in different parts of the Punjab and therefore it is not possible to lay down a general rule relating to rights of ala maliks. Rattigan in his well-known Digest of Customary Law has stated that there are two ways in which the classes of ala and adna maliks are created in a village. Firstly, where the ala maliks are those whose ancestors have been farmers of revenue or conquerors who have been content to leave all the management etc., of the lands to the conquered peasantry and to take quit-rents. These ala maliks are merely taluqdars. Secondly, where the sole proprietors of the soil of the village have called in outsiders and settled them on some or all of the lands. According to the Digest it is only in cases of second type that an ala malik is entitled to the right of revision on the death of the adna malik without heirs and in no other case is an ala malik entitled to such a right. In such villages the adna maliks are real owners of soil and ala maliks are entitled to receive only a certain percentage on the revenue.

(3.) It appears that originally the Kangra Hills belonged to Raja Sansar Chand but in 1827-28 his entire territory was annexed by Maharaja Ranjit Singh and the rights of Raja Sansar Chand came to an end. Judh Bir Chand, the ancestor of the present Raja (the appellate in this appeal) was made a Jagirdar and the title of Raja was conferred on him by Maharaja Ranjit Singh. The Maharaja made him an assignee of land revenue only and this assignment did not confer any proprietary rights in the land. The lower appellate Court has held that the Raja was not the owner of the soil and this finding has not been challenged before me. In fact this finding is in accord with the wajib-ul-arz of the village in which it is laid down that the adna maliks have full rights to transfer their land. This being so, the Raja is merely a taluqdar and according to general custom he is not entitled to the right of reversion on the death of adna malik.