RAJA MODHU SUDAN SINGH Vs. ROOKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit in this case was instituted to recover possession of two villages, part of the zemindari of the Pandra Raj in the district of Manbhoom. The appellant is the heir of Raja Sagur Narain Singh, the former owner of it, who died in May, 1847, leaving his widow, Rani Hingan Kumari and two brothers. The right of the widow to succeed him was disputed by the brothers, and she had to bring a suit to recover possession of an 8-annas share of the zemindari. In this she was successful, and, having obtained possession of the estate, she remained in possession of it till her death in December, 1881. The appellant then took possession; and in March, 1882, a suit was instituted against him by the younger of the brothers, claiming as the heir of Raja Sagur Narain Singh. It was dismissed by the District Court in April, 1887, and this decree was confirmed by the High Court on June 25, 1889. In July, 1882, a receiver was appointed to take charge of the estate, and he continued to be in charge of it until May 3, 1887, when he was discharged.

(2.) ON January 26, 1864, the widow granted a putni lease or settlement of the two villages to the respondent at an annual rent of Rs.475, and upon receipt of a bonus of Rs.2525. The appellant in his suit asked to have this putni set aside on the ground that the widow had no legal reason or necessity for making it. This was the subject of one of the issues which has been found in the appellant's favour by the District Court and the High Court. The question upon which the Courts have differed arises from the receipt of rent by the appellant after the widow's death. For three years the rent was paid to the receiver. The important payment is of the rent due for the native years 1295 and 1296 (1887-1890) after he was discharged.

(3.) IN considering their effect it must be observed that the putni was not void: it was only voidable; the Raja might elect to assent to it and treat it as valid. Its validity depended upon the circumstances in which it was made. The learned judges of the High Court appear to have fallen into the error of treating the putni as if it absolutely came to an end at the death of the widow. After referring to six or seven cases in the Indian Courts, they say: "In all these cases it seems to have been held that the receipt of rent from a person after his lease has expired operates as a recognition of his right as a tenant and constitutes in him some kind of tenancy which would require a notice to determine." Also, they speak of the expiry of the lease upon the death of the life tenant; and they hold that a receipt of rent was at least a recognition of a tenancy from year to year, which required a notice to quit. The real question does not appear to have been considered by them or properly by the Subordinate Judge, who says that in the petition for the withdrawal of the rent deposit the status of the plaintiff as putnidar was not recognised, but takes no notice of the petition depositing the money. The taking rent, which was in that petition stated to be due under the putni, was prima facie an admission that the putni was still subsisting an election by the Raja to treat it as valid. If it could have been shewn that the receipt of the rent ought not to have that effect, evidence bearing upon that point ought to have been adduced by the Raja. In the absence of such evidence, their Lordships think there is a sufficient prima facie case of an election by the Raja to affirm the validity of the putni; and they will humbly advise Her Majesty to dismiss the appeal, and to affirm the decree of the High Court, which in their opinion is right, although not for the reasons given by the Court. The appellant will pay the costs of this appeal.