BAGESSWARI CHARAN SINGH Vs. KUMAR KAMAKHYA NARAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this, as in the case of Sir Charu Chandra Ghose V/s. Kumar Kamakhya Narain Singh, AIR 1931 PC 5 in which judgment has just been delivered, the main issue is as to the correctness of an entry in the khewat or Record-of-Rights of the Ramgarh zamindari prepared under the provisions of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. S. 84 (3) of that Act imposes on parties challenging such an entry the burden of proving by; evidence that it is incorrect.

(2.) The suit is brought on behalf of the minor Raja of Ramgarh for a declaration that the defendants have no right to the minerals in the villages hold by them and for an injunction and damages. The claim for damages has been withdrawn. The defendants denied that they derived title from the plaintiff or his predecessors-in- title, and alleged that the themselves were the owners of the villages and of the subjacent minerals. In the khewat the defendants' tenure is entered as jagir held under the Rajah of Ramgarh resumable after the family of Fateh Singh, the supposed grantee, becomes extinct without any heirs being loft at an annual rent of Rs. 1,387-1-9, and cesses amounting, at the time of survey, to Rs. 2,112-6-0. If this entry is correct, the plaintiff must be regarded as the proprietor of the villages and the defendants as holding under him, and it is well settled that as between zemindar and jagirdar the zemindar must be regarded as the owner of the minerals.

(3.) It is, therefore, incumbent on the defendants to show that the entry is incorrect. Apart from the statutory presumption arising in this case, there is a general presumption that the land in a zemindari is the property of the zemindar, and held under him. In the two cases from this zemindari which have already come before the Board there was evidence that the defendant tenure-holders were the original proprietors of the suit villages, and it was not shown that they had come to be held from Ramgarh zemindars as jagirs. They were, therefore, held to have been correctly entered in the khewat as shamilat taluks, that is to say, taluks of which the talukdars were the proprietors though liable to pay the Government revenue to the zemindar of Ramgarh instead of directly to Government. In the present case the Subordinate Judge held that the defendants had established this and dismissed the plaintiff's suit; but the appellate Court were of a contrary opinion, and gave the plaintiff a decree. In their Lordships' opinion the defendants have wholly failed to prove their title and have no answer to the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff and the defendants are members of the same family, and it is not questioned that, if the defendants were junior members of the family the natural inference would be that this was a khorposh or maintenance jagir granted to them by the head of the family. It is said however that the defendants are the senior branch of the family and that it ought to be inferred that they do not hold these villages under grant from the Ramgarh Raja, but merely pay him the Government revenues for an estate which their ancestors acquired by force of arms.