LAWS(PVC)-1884-12-4

THAKUR SURAT SINGH Vs. THAKUR ROHAN SINGH

Decided On December 08, 1884
Thakur Surat Singh Appellant
V/S
Thakur Rohan Singh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case is one relating to title to immovable property, and their Lordships think the parties should present their case with some degree of substantial accuracy, and prove it as alleged; in other words, that their Lordships should deal with the case on the allegation and the proof.

(2.) THE Plaintiff, Thakur Surat Singh, seeks to resume his right as to two villages, Newada and Gadiana. His petition put his case thus :--"That Thakur Bharat Sing is the sanad holding talukdar of taluka Atwa and Nasirpur, which includes the villages of Newada and Gadiana. According to the sanad granted to him by Government under Act I. of 1869, he possessed all proprietary powers over the said villages, and consequently he has made over in gift to Plaintiff all his taluka under a deed of gift dated 31st August, 1878." The allegation is that Surat Singh became the assignee of Bharat Singh's rights. The sanad gives him all proprietary rights subject to the rights of occupation, and other rights of parties who were in possession at the time of the grant, and which they might have established either as a matter of under-proprietary right or sub-settlement, or a right to be continued in occupation. So far there is no controversy. He then alleges that the Defendant was lessee of the said villages under a lease for an unlimited term,--(it has been agreed in the course of the argument that "unlimited" is to be read as "undefined")--at an annual jama of Rs. 1628, the lease having been granted by Thakur Bharat Singh (the donor), whose successor Plaintiff is under the deed of gift." If that were in controversy, their Lordships think there is evidence in the case which establishes that allegation: for whether the holding of the two villages was originally a separate holding of each, or a joint holding for Rs. 1454, by the transaction which took place in 1865, at the time of the general regular settlement of Oudh, that rent had been increased, under circumstances to which their Lordships will refer, to Rs. 1628 for both, without distinction, and would seem to have constituted a tenancy at that date, in 1865, of both villages at the consolidated rent of Rs. 1628. The remainder of the petition of the Plaintiff is this. He alleges in substance that he had a right to resume possession; that he gave notice of his intention to resume; and the Defendant denied his right. These facts not being controverted, prima facie established the relation of landlord and tenant between the Plaintiff and Rohan Singh, who himself would be the lessee in 1865, and is the successor of the original grantee. Unfortunately there is no written statement on the part of the Defendant, but there is a verbal statement made at the Bar, very much resembling the old Common Law pleading "ore tenus." There is a verbal statement made by Mr. Sykes, counsel for Defendant, taken down by the Judge, which is tantamount to this--"I admit your prima facie case, but my case displaces yours, and I will tell you what it is." Accordingly we find that:--" Mr. Sykes states the parties are descended from a common ancestor, one Nuggar Sah. Defendant's adoptive father, Kesri Singh, got the property in dispute "--that is the two villages --"in A.D. 1826 (1233 F.) on a contract from Gunga Bahsh; that Kesri was to hold for ever, at a rental which was a certain percentage above the Government Revenue." Now that is a clear and precise case, and if the Defendant has sustained it in proof, he has a right to succeed here.

(3.) THEIR Lordships would not be inclined to construe these issues adversely to the Defendant as to the terms, proprietary right, or otherwise, but they will consider whether he has established a right to remain as he is, paying the rents for these villages, and to remain there for ever; whether you call it a right to sub-settlement, or an under-proprietary right, or a right not to be disturbed, is not material. If the Defendant has shewn a right to remain there undisturbed by the Plaintiff, their Lordships will give effect to that right.