LAL INDRA SHAH Vs. SHEOSHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the zamindar and superior proprietor of Mauza Deosur in the Ambagarh Chowki zamindari situated in the Drug District in the Central Provinces. The respondents are inferior proprietors of the mauza. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the respondents in the Court of the Additional District Judge of Raipur against the appellant for a declaration that the respondents as inferior proprietors were entitled to all rights over the forest and banjar within the boundaries of the mauza as the zamindar himself had over the rest of his estate subject only to the annual payment of Rs. 90, and that the entries in the Wajibularz of 1925 which declared the zamindar to be entitled to those rights were not correct, and they prayed that those entries should be cancelled.

(2.) The trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal the Judicial Commissioner of the Central Provinces reversed the decision of the trial Court, and decreed the respondent's claim. From that decree the zamindar has brought the present appeal to His Majesty in Council. The respondents did not appear before their Lordships at the hearing of this appeal.

(3.) Ambagarh Chowki zamindari was formerly in the Chanda District, and was transferred to the Drug District in 1907. The first regular settlement of the zamindari was made in 1862-69, but to inferior proprietors were created at that settlement. The next settlement of the zamindari was in 1902-04. At that settlement the respondents' predecessor-in-title was recorded in the khewat as inferior proprietor of the mauza and a sub settlement was made with him. A Wajibularz of the Mouza was prepared which consisted of several clauses each with a distinct heading. Cl.19 of the Wajibularz is headed "rights of inferior proprietors over the village waste and the forest produce." There are no entries under that heading, but there appears the mark-X-below the heading of that clause in the official copy filed by the respondents and the mark in official copy filed by the appellant. It appears from the evidence of respondent 1 given in this suit that his predecessor claimed at that settlement the rights which are now claimed by him, but his claim was rejected.