RAJA MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ ALI KHAN Vs. MURAD BAKHSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the six cases out of which these consolidated appeals have arisen, the plaintiff was Raja Muhammad Mumtaz Ali Khan, the Talukdar of Atraula and the defendants were persons who, either by themselves or their predecessors in title, claimed under proprietary rights in villages in his taluka. These rights are what are known in Oudh as birt, or birt Zemindari rights ; and the question for decision is whether persons holding under this tenure have a heritable and transferable right, as against the talukdar, in the villages in respect of which the birt has been created.

(2.) In Mr. Syke's valuable Compendium of the Law specially relating to the Talukdars of Oudh (p. 173) it is stated that "there are several descriptions of Birt known in Oudh, but . . . the true Birt is that known as the Bai Birt, created by the Talukdar or proprietor for money paid." In the Gonda Settlement Report-and the cases now under appeal come from that district-the Bai Birt is spoken of as Birt Zemindari.

(3.) In the Circular known as the Record of Rights Circular, No. 2 of 1861, the Chief Commissioner of Oudh deals very fully with the subject of Birt tenures and lays down the policy of the Government in regard to them. "Birts," he says," were given for whole mauzas, or patches of land in mauzas.... These tenures, when granted by the talnkdar for money received, will be maintained as representing the proprietary rights of the Birtias who by purchase have acquired the position of inter mediate holders and as constituting the portion of the profits left them by the Tal ukdar.... Birts of entire mauzas are very common in Gonda and Gorruckpore. They originated in purchases from needy talukdars and sometimes in clearing leases of jungle land. In the otrowla (Atraula) and Bubnee pergunnahs of the Gonda district, the birtias had been in many instances admitted to direct engagement with the Native Government for years previous to annexation, and, of course, were settled with then and should have been at the late Summary Settlement, on the principle that we are not bound to restore to the talukdars what they had lost before our rule commenced