MAHARAJ BAHADUR SINGH Vs. JADAB CHANDRA GHOSE HAZRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit to recover arrears of putni rent. The taluk was created or confirmed by a kabuliat dated 25th Assar, 1257, corresponding with the 8th July, 1850. The rent reserved is therein stated to be "Company s sicca rupees 96" and the question in controversy is whether the plaintiff landlords are entitled to Rs. 96 in current coin or the equivalent in current coin of 96 sicca rupees.

(2.) The word "sikka" or "sicca," meaning originally, it would seem, a die or stamp, came next to mean a stamped coin and more particularly the silver coinage of the Kings of Dehi. Lastly, sicca rupiya became, the name specially given to the rupee coined by the East India Company from the year 1773 and bearing inscriptions denoting that it had been struck by the King Shah Alam at Murshidabad in the 19th year of his reign. From Acts XVII of 1835 and XIII of 1836 it appears that this rupee being latterly coined only at the mint in Calcutta became known as the Calcutta sicca rupee. The 1st of the aforesaid Acts prohibited the farther coinage of the sicca rupee and introduced the coin to be denominated, and thereafter known as the "Company s rupee." Under the 2nd the sicca rupee ceased to be legal tender from the 1st of January, 1838.

(3.) The question then is whether the rupee mentioned in this document of 1850 is the "Calcutta sicca rupee" or the Company s rupee exclusively current after the year 1837. In the course of the argument we have been referred to the cases of Ram Saran Singh v. Gyan Sing (1887) 6 C.L.J. 637, Ram Khelwan Singh v. Kumar Rai (1892) 6 C.L.J. 667, Rameshar Koer v. Goberdhan Lal (1907) 7 C.L.J. 202, Mir Tapurah Hossein v. Gopi Narayan (1907) 7 C.L.J. 251 and Raja Kamaleshwari Pershad Singh v. Ramhari Singh (1913) 19 C.L.J. 348 but these cases do not help us. They merely determine that when the rent is fixed in sicca rupees the difference in value between the sicca rupee and the Company s or current rupee is realisable as part of the rent and is not to be regarded as an abwab. Here the question is which of the two coins was intended and the difficulty is caused by the collocation of the two terms company and sicca. It does not appear that the sicca rupee though coined by the Company over became known as the "Company s" sicca and the term Company s rupee has always borne the special signification given to it by Act XVII of 1835.