RAJAH BHUPENDRA NARAYAN SINGH Vs. NARAPAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a consolidated appeal by special leave from one judgment and 18 decrees dated the 27th February, 1922, of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal. Each of the 18 decrees though relating to a distinct subject-matter, raises the same question for decision. Each suit was a suit to recover possession from the defendant (who is the present appellant) the Zamindar of certain villages in Putni settlement of Chaukidari Chakran lands which had been resumed by the Government under the provisions of Bengal Act VI of 1870, and were transferred to the Zamindar subject to the payment of rent assessed on the lands in accordance with Section 51 of the Act. The plaintiffs (respondents) alleged that by a pottah dated 13th November, 1853, the predecessors in title of the appellant Zamindar granted five villages in Putni settlement at the annual rent of Rs. 4,589 to one Krishna Chandra, from whom the plaintiffs derived title. It was further alleged by the plaintiffs, and it is not now in dispute that at the time of the Putni settlement there were certain lands in every village which were Chaukidari Ohakran lands, and were held and enjoyed by the Chaukidars in lieu of their salaries, and that such lands which had been transferred as aforesaid by the Collector form part of the lands of the Putnidar under the said pattah of 13th November, 1853. The appellant, on the other hand, denied that under the terms of the said pattah the plaintiffs had any title to the Chaukidari Chakran lands released by the Government, and that in any event the plaintiffs were not entitled to get possession thereof without paying some rent in addition to the annual rent of Rs. 4,589 fixed in the pattah.

(2.) ALL the suits were tried by the Munsiff of Rampurhat, who by his judgment dated 30th September 1910, held that the disputed property was included in Putni settlement, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to obtain Khas or actual possession of the lands in suit, but that they could not do so without paying an additional rent to the Zamindar, and he concluded his judgment in the following terms: The plaintiffs' putni lease appears to cover all the lands within the boundaries-of the mahals, but the profits of the Chaukidari lands were not taken into account in determining the rent payable by the Putnidar. The plaintiff' must be held to pay a higher amount for the resumed lands than that which has been assessed for Chaukidari purposes on these lands by the Collector as by the resumption the lands were enfranchised and the Putnidars would get the land free from the burden of the public service. The principle has been laid down in 4 Calcutta Weekly Notes, page 814, the Putnidar is bound to pay to the Zamindar such a rent for these lands as corresponds to the proportion between the gross collection and the Putni rent formerly payable by him.

(3.) THE learned Judges, however, held that the series of decisions laying down this principle could no longer be supported having regard to the decisions of this Board in two cases, viz. : (1921) 34 C.L.J. 275 Raja Banjit Singh v. Kali Dasi Debi A.I.R. 1917 P.C. 8 and Banjit Singh v. Maharaj Bahadur Singh A.I.R. 1918 P.C. 85. Their Lordships cannot agree with the appellate Court that either of the cases referred to has the effect attributed to it by the learned Judges. In the first of these cases where it is to be observed the order was in substantially the same form as in the present case, all that this Board decided was that a putni grant by a Zamindar of his interest in lands includes his interest in Chaukidari Chakran lands within the boundaries of the grant, and that upon there being resumed and transferred to the Zamindar under Bengal Act VI of 1870 the Patnidar or Darpatnidar holding from him is entitled under Section 51 of that Act to possession. The Patnidar did not in that case challenge the validity of so much of the order appealed from as rendered the decrees for possession subject to the fixing of a fair and reasonable assessment. In giving the judgment of the Board, Lord Parker of Waddington added : "It is satisfaction to find that the view above expressed is that hitherto universally adopted in the Indian Court."