SAMBHASIO NARAYAN DEODE Vs. KASHINATH NAGOJI THAKRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff-respondent is the izardar of village Yedat in Wun taluq, district Yeotmal. The defendant-appellant is recorded as the plot-holder of field survey No. 89 of that izara village. This field was sold by the izardar to one Narayan Devaji Hepat Kunbi by sale deed dated 10th March 1924 (Ex. P-l) for Rs. 4500. It is stated in the sale deed that in lieu of the consideration of Rs. 4500 the entire field survey No. 89, area 24 acres 32 gunthas, rent Rs. 16 together with all rights and trees and shrubs owned by them and in their possession situate at the izara village, mouza Yedat, pargana Kayar, taluq Wun, district Yeotmal, is sold, and that the purchaser should enjoy the same generation after generation. This Narayan sold the field to one Krishnayya brothers Sambaya and Madhav Naraya by sale deed (Ex. D-l) dated 10th November 1933. In this sale deed, the purchasers got inserted the following additional words, which are not to be found in Ex. P-l: 'together with the entire rights of izara.' This Krishnayya and others sold the same field to the present defendant by sale deed dated 18th April 1936, and the words 'together with all the rights of izara' are mentioned therein. This field, which was assessed at Rs. 16 when it was sold by Ex. P-l, was at the settlement of 1928 assessed at Rupees 23.

(2.) THE plaintiff-izardar sued the defendant for the assessment of the years 1936.37,1937-38 and 1938-39. It was alleged in the plaint that Narayan, and after him his transferees, paid the assessment to the izardar, Rs. 16 to begin with and later on Rs. 28; but the defendant did not pay for the years in suit, and therefore the claim against the defendant. The defence was that the entire assessment of the land was not payable to the izardar because the izardar had parted with all his rights in the field, and as the izardar was liable to pay only half of the assessment to Government as land revenue, his transferee, Narayan, and after him the present defendant, were also liable to pay only half of the assessment to the izardar. It was stated that the full assessment was never paid. The plaintiff filed with the plaint not only a copy of the sale deed (Ex. P-l) but also a copy of the Record of Bights entries (Ex. P-2). In those entries we find it very clearly stated that the defendant was a plot-holder of the land in dispute and that Rs. 23, the assessment, was payable by him to the izardar. Exhibit P-8 is for the year 1936. As described by Diwan Bahadur K.V. Brahma in his Berar Land Revenue Code, Edn. 2, the izaras were first granted in 1865 under the Waste Land Rules; the izardars are now the full proprietors of the lands of the village; these lands are however regarded as alienated lands under the Berar Land Revenue Code, but they are not governed by the Berar Inam Rules of 1859. It is also stated by the learned author: Lands settled in pursuance of the rules of 1865 are popularly called Neem Jagir as the Government has agreed to take only half share of the total assessment of the village and to let go the other half to the ijardar. It is a disposal of land under favourable terms and hence the term Neem Jagir or half maufi land.

(3.) THIS clearly shows that the advantage of the concession is in favour of one who is the recognized izardar of the village, and it is to him alone that the concession is made with respect to the entire village. The defendant is claiming these rights because he and his predecessor (who got the property under Ex. D-1) got it mentioned in their sale deeds the additional words "together with all the rights of izara." But the izardar while executing his sale deed never said in Ex. P-l that he was parting with any rights in the izara. I hold therefore that the rights in the izara have not been parted with in favour of the defendant and therefore he cannot claim the concession to which the izardar is entitled under Section 96(2), Berar Land Revenue Code.