CHHOTE KHAN DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS SON, HARMAT, AND OTHERS versus MAL KHAN AND OTHERS.

GttULAM J.-This appeal is brought ·against the judgment and decree dated November 10, 1944, of the Lahore High Court (Sir Trevor Harries C. J. and Mr. Justice Mahajan, the present Chief Justice of this Court) reversing the judgment and decree of the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Gurgaon, as Senior Subordinate Judge, and dismissing the plaintiffs-appellants' suit.

p. 61

Dalmir, Dilmor ·and Chhinga were three brothers and Amir Khan and Sharif Khan were the two collaterals. Alif Khan was the son of Amir Khan. The present dispute is between the descendants of the five branches of the family .

p. 61

The suit was brought by the descendants of Dalmir against the descendants of Dilmor, Chhinga, Ali£ Khan and Sharif Khan. To this suit were also impleaded as defendants some of the descendants of Dalmir. The plaintiffs claimed a declaration that they along with defendants Nos. 17 to 19 are full owners in possession of 819 Bighas 19 Biswas land situate in village . Manota Tehsil Ferozepore Jhirka in the Gurgaon District, that

p. 61

the defendants Nos. 1 to 16 had no right to claim ;. partition of that land and that they were entitled only to the produce of land measuring 140 Bighas 19 Biswas possessed by them without payment of land revenue. The aforesaid defendants, it was alleged, were bound by the terms embodied in the agreement dated September 11, 1861, in the Wajib-ul-arz of that Settlement and repeated in subsequent Settlements which debarred them from any right to claim partition. Defendants \.Nos. 1 to 16, who are the contesting defendants, pleaded in defence that the plaintiffs along with the pro-forma defendants Nos. 17 to 19 were recorded in revenue ·papers as owners· of l/~th •share in the land,· in• dispute, while the contesting defendants were .• rerordi:d ' as owners of the remaining 4/~th. share and as such they were entitled to . claim partition. The .defendants denied that any agreement or condition in the Wajib-ul-arz restricting their right to partition was binding after the expiry of the term of the Settlement and contended that it could not operate ' as a bar to tlfeir claim to partition. The Assistant Collector trying the suit as a Civil Court under section 117 of the Punjab ' Land Revenue Act (Act XVII of 1887) decreed the claim. He held. that the contesting 'defendants were entitled only to get produce of 140 Bighas· and 19 Biswas of land in their possession without payment of land tevenue arid had no interest in the-.remaining land. This decree was reversed· on appeal, the High Court holding that the defendants are entitled to 4/5th share as proprietors, that the original agreement repeated in s)lbsequent S.ettlements was binding on the parties so long • as the Settlements were in for.ce, that it ceased to have any effect after the expiry of the Settlements and that the renewal of its terms in the Settlement of 1938-39 . was not binding as they were not agreed to by the contesting defendants. The learned Judges held that the judgment (D. 4) .dated June 15, 1893 of .the Chief Court of Punjab inter-parties, which held that ·the prohibition of partition eontained in the . W ajib-ul-arz ·did not sillvive the expiry of the period of the Settlement, was binding upon them. They took the view that .. the contesting defendants being proprietors, the right. of partition was inherent in their right of ownership. . As a result of these findings the suit was dismissea.

pp. 61–62

We have heard Dr. Tek Cband, learned counsel for the appellants, in support of the appeal. at length . but 'we are of opinion that there is no force in the appeal.

p. 62

The parties are Meos and the land in dispute is situate In village Manota in Tehsil· Ferozepore, Jhirka in Gurgaon District. According . to . the Gazetter · of Gurgaon District (1910) the Meos owned nearly° the .whole of the Ferozepore Tehsil and varioqs~other villages in Gurgaon.~ They are divided into .several sub-tribes, . and.these · sub-tribes possess .a strong ·feeling of.•uliity ·and ·the power· of. corporate action. ·It was· ·'stated :·thaf "in ·the·, mutiny· the· members of :·each· sub-division generally acted together ; - and district· officers are advised to'·· keep themselves info:rmed -0£ the names and characters of the men, :who from time to time possess (;onsiderable • influence over their fellow-tribesmen." (P. 60). ·

pp. 62–63

The documentary evidence regarding the title to the property in dispute ranges over a period of four Settlements, each Settlement being for a period of thirty years. The first Settlement was made in 1839-42, the second in: 1872-1879,. the third in 1903-08 and the last in 1938-39 which is the current ,Settlement. The village was assessed · to annual · -revenue of Rs. 323 for the period of,_ 30 years from 1246 to 1275 Fasli (corresponding to 1839-1862 · A.D.) which . was made payable by Dalmir Lamberdar who is described as sole owner. The Settlement- papers were, however, lost during ·the mutiny -and after taking fresh measurements the settlement papers were completed. Alif Khan, Dalmir and Dilmor signed what . is called an agreement binding them by all conditions, provisions and declarations made at the time of the. Settlement (P. 12) •

p. 63

It is common ground. that the property was originally granted in 1822 A. D. to Dalmir by Nawab Ahmad Bakhsh Khan Rais ·of Ferozepore Jhirka. The grant is not in writing and there is no contemporaneous record which could-· throw any light on its terms. Dalmir claimed to be the sole grantee with full proprietary ' rights. A number of documents are attached to the Settlement record of 1863 .. They are· important as

p. 63

showing how the property was dealt with by the Settle- ; . ment authorities. from time to time and the state of the revenue n;cords. The earliest document on record appears to be an agreement dated. September 28, 1861, which is incorporated _in paragraph 18 of . the Wajib-ul-arz of village Manota. It says , -that the tenure of, -the village is zamindari. . Dalmir is entitled to profit and liable . foi: loss in respect of the entire village .. The other biswadars are owners .oLthe produce, of the; land cultivated by_ them but they pay no revenue. This, it is stated.,· is the benefit. th~y ,ef!joy (P. 35 ; ,0. JI) .. This docun;ient is signed in token of verification by Dalmir Lamberdar, Dilmor, Alif · Khan Biswadar and .Phusa Biswadar, who are described as proprietors. Phusa, we are .told, is the alias of Chhinga. There is a report of · Mr. John Lawrence (later Lord Lawrence), Settlement Officer referred to in the Gazetteer, which says that the arrangement then in vogue was that ~ few owners shared the profit and loss of the land revenue and the others were exempted from .responsibility. Manota was one of the few villages which . continued to follow the system (P. 179).

pp. 63–64

Paragraph 2 of the Wajib-ul-arz which relates to the mode of partition, after stating the area of the village as 837 Bighas and 9 Biswas, says "When we, the cosharers want to partition it, we ourselves will do so of our accord in accordance with our shares shown in the Khewat papers or through the village Patwari in the presence of Panchayat of the brotherhood. The new abadi (cultivation of new land) will be . made with the consent of all the biswadars. One biswadar is not competent to make a new abadi". (D.10).

p. 64

P. 4 is a statement showing apportionment of Jama, (i.e.; Khewat money) in the village. After stating that the Settlement of the village was made. in the name of Dalmir, sole owner, and. that he alone was entitled to profit and· liable for loss; it goes on to say that Alif Khan son of Amir and Phusa son of Chhinga and Dilmor. having cultivated a specified area of land became owners of the produce · of the land without payment of rent · and also became entitled to profit and liable for loss.

p. 64

Paragraph 10 of the Wajib-ul-arz contains an agreement about. trees. It shows that the trees standing in the house or field of the owner belong to him, and he is FOmpetent to plant and cut them. . So far as the occupaocy ·tenants are concerned, the trees standing in their hquses also belong . to them as they cultivate land but Dalmfr alone had the 'right to cut or sell them. '.l;'hese ·are ·an the material documents ·pertaining to the Settleinerit record of 1863. · We now come to the Settlement record of 1877.

p. 64

P. 17 is an important document. Paragraph 1 which deals with the history of the village is reproduced below:-

p. 65

"Fifty-two years ago in Sambat 1880, Dalrnir, Caste Meo, Got Sogan, along with Dilmor and Chhinga, his real brothers, took possession of the area of this village, with the permission of Nawab Ahmed Bakhsh Khan Sahib, Rais of Ferozepore, who granted him a Biswadari estate without payment of any Nazrana in lieu of the services rendered by him and made this desolate tract abad. ·He along with his brothers jointly remained in possession thereof and enjoyed profit and bQre loss. After him Amir Khan became abad in the village and along with us, proprietors, remained in possession. Accordingly, we the proprietors got his name entered as a Biswadar at the time of the Revised Settlement. After him Sharif Khan, son of Ghariba, who was also a collateral, came to this village in Sambat 1916 and_ remained in possession along with us proprietors. Accordingly we got his name also recorded along with ours im the 14th September, 1863. We have up to this day been joint owners. This village has never been partitioned. Shares are given in the Khewat papers."

p. 65

This document shows that although the name of Dalmir is mentioned as being the sole grantee by virtue of the services rendered by him to the Nawab, his two brothers also were irr joint possession with him. Not only this but Amir Khan and Sharif Khan, who are both collaterals, also had joint possession of the village. They are all described as proprietors. and their names are recorded as joint owners. The authenticity of this document is beyond question. It cuts at the root of the theory of Dalmir being the sole owner. It is true that Dalmir was mentioned as the sole owner in D. 4 but the grant was treated by Dalmir himself · as . being the joint property of his two brothers and the tWo collaterals whether or not it was originally intended for the benefit of the family as understood in its widest sense.

p. 65

Paragraph 5 of the Wajib-ul-arz relating to the tenure of the village apd the mode of payment of revenue

p. 65

. '. . -~ ~ ~ : .,r . says . that the village is bilijmal (joint) and that the sons of Daltrtir · shaU: continue· to· ·pay the Government revenue in respect of their own shares·· as well as· · 0-e shares of the sons of his two brothers and the shares Of the collaterals. The '.'reason given is. that no money' is taken froin the said co-sharers· 'On account .of relationship. (P.: 15). This statement is consistent . only with: joint ·ownership. · \ ..

p. 66

Paragraph· 7 of the Wajib-ul-arz also describes. the tenures as Zamindari bilijmal and repeats . the · statement. that : the other c.osharers . of Dalmir, do not pay ·ariy. rent or Jama in respect of tjie land c~ltivated by them. on accoun( of their relationship. No single sharer . has the right. to reclaim the Banjar area .without the . ron-" sent of all the proprie~ors. (P. 19). This Wajib-ul arz is verified by the proprietors, .tenants,· llhandadars (a. village servant to whom .cultivation is allotted .rent. free), Kamins (menials) and the inhabitants of the village. It is admittediy signed by ·the ancestors of the" parties (P. 22). · · . , ...

p. 66

The Khewat and ,the Khatauni (P, 31) prepared dur-, ing the Settlement both .record the five branches ·of the : . family as 'being in possession of a I/5th share each.• .k similar entry is to be found in the Khatauni (D. 18).

p. 66

It appears that dming the currency of · this Settlement two suits for .partition·· were filed ·in the · Revenue,.· Court but the partition was not allowed. (P. 5).

p. 66

Coming ·to the Settlemenr of 1903-08 we· 'find ,a Statement In clause 3«~£ the Wajib-ul-atz (n; 13) that the, descenda;,ts of Dalmir · alone 'could get the ~.and parti~ tioned in five equal 'shares" but the descendants of the other four coshares, who were cultivating • lai;id ;Y,,ithout payment' ' of revenue, owing . to non-rendition" of account iri respec,t of profit and' leis~ .o( thefr .'respective shares, could ilOt have ·the 'land' partitioned. . · · ·• ·

p. 66

I,astly we come 'to th~ Jamabaridi ' of 1937-38' (P. I). This shows· · tH~t . all the five branches were entered. as bein'g in posses~joh Of' eq\Ja(shaI~S. . . - • · ~ '~

p. 66

Mehrab, · grandsll!). of Dalinir and one of the plaintiffs, who gave eviden~e as P.W. 5 admitted tha:t defendant$ Nos. 1 to 16 were s4own as proprietors in th<;. Jam,aba,nri, , but h:e Ii.ever raised · 'a'ny cibjettion t~)t: He.. al~~- :admitted i:hat Mehar Singh, grandson of ·Sharif ~ha~, sold his half share to Chhote · Khan and Bhola, his coplaintiffs and that they did not challenge the saine.

pp. 66–67

We ~ay .now ~efer to the civil litigation which start- ·ed in 1891. It arose upon the rejection of the applica- · tions for partition made by Alif Khan and Sharif Khan ·on September 24, 1890, by the Assistant Collector. Alif Khan filed a suit against the. descendants of the three brothers and the descendants of Sharif Khan. In ;the plaint. (D. 1) he claimed a. declaration of 1/5th :Share of the entire village. The sons of Dalmir denied' the daim. In their written statement (B. 2) they alleged that · in previous proceedings they had denied the plaintiffs' right to partition and that the defend- :ants had been in adverse possession of the land and .that the plaintiffs and others had been cultivating land as B,handadars (village servants). The Subordinate Judge decreed the claim (D. 3). This decree was upheld by the Divisional Judge, but the judgment is . not on record. In second appeal the Chief Court amended the decree by declaring that the plaintiff was entitled to 1/5th share in the village to be enjoyed subject to· the qualifications and restrictions set forth m the Xhewat and the Wajib-ul-arz which do not permit of · his obtaining partition while the present Wajib-ul-arz was in force. This decree was made upon.. the admission made by the defendants in the course of the arguments. Paragraph. 8 of the Wajib-ul-arz ·of 1877 (D .. 12 -:.P· 16) which was the subject of conflicting interpretation by the parties was interpreted by ·the Chief Court to mean that its effect was, to prohibit general diyision a.mong the co-sharers while ·the W a jibul-arz was still ii: force, They held that the five sons of Dalmir could separate their shares inter se but not the other co-sharers .. We are of opinion that this judgment which is inter-panes -'finally set at rest the con-·• troversy between them by .declaring. that ·the parties' were joint owners holding equiil shares. and . con,stittJtes res judicaia. 'The judg~eni Is. als~ . in conformiiy' ... with . rthe true eff~ct ,of the - document~ry evidence· on. the.

p. 67

record. No doubt the name of Dalmir was entered in some documents as the sole owner but that entry by itself is not conclusive and must be read in conjunction -with the other entries in the Settlement record. Dalmir may have been the original grantee but his own conduct shows that he did not regard himself as absolute owner to the exclusion of his own brothers. Indeed ·according to the entry he even treated his collaterals on an equal footing. His description as sole owner in the circumstances carries no value. Whatever may h~ve been the position at the time of the original grant, the subsequent conduct of the parties unmistakably shows that all the five branches were treated as owners _ in equal shares. Dalmir as the lamberdar was made responsible for the payment of the entire land revenue. He was entitled to profit and was responsible for loss. The . others were given less land and were exempted from payment of rent or revenue on account of relationship. This arrangement appears to have been fairly general in those days as appears from the report of Mr. (later Lord) . Lawrence, Settlement Officer, referred to above. The arrangement was that a few owners shared the profit and loss of the !at)d revenue assessment while the others were exempted. The Government was primarily interested m the payment of the revenue- and they apparently found it more convenient to hold the head or the most influential member .of the family as responsible for payment of the entire revenue leaving it to him to make such arrangemeht among his co-sharers as he thought fit. In later Settlements the owners accepting responsibility . for- the payment of the land revenue did not find it profitable and . the system gradually disappeared. Lord Lawrence remarks that at the third Settlement the number of villages which still continued the system was· reduced to three' and one of these was Manota m Ferozepore Tehsil (page 179)~- This accounts for Dalmir being called the sole - owner · and being made · responsible for payment of Government revenue.

p. 68

· · By section 44 of the Punjab· Land Revenue Act an entry inade in the record of rights · or in an annual record shall be presumed to be . true until the contrary is proved. That entries in the Jamabandies fall within the purview of the record of rights under section 31 of the Act admits of no doubt. Section 16 of the old Act (XXIII of 1871) laid down that entries in the record of rights made or authenticated at a regular Settlement shall be presumed to ·be true. We are satisfied that the materials on the record taken as a whole justify the view which has been taken by the High Court that the contesting defendants are joint owners and not mere cultivators who are not entitled to claim partition of the property. The judgment of the Chief Court also recognized the proprietary right of the defendants but qualified it by the declaration that so long as the Settlement was in force, they were not entitled to par;tition by reason of their agreement recorded in the Settlement papers. The Settlements of 1877 and 1908-09 have ceased to operate and the entry in the current Settlement of 1938-39 having been made under the orders of the Collector has no value when the contesting defendants did not agree to its being incorporated. The previous agreement was not one for perpetuity but for a limited period only and there is no reason in law why the prohibition against partition should be now enforced against the contesting defendants. It has been held in a number of cases that the entry regarding agreement in . a Wajib-ul-arz holds good during the period of the Settlement in which it is made and becomes inoperative when the Settlement has come to an end: Hira and Others v. Muhamadi and Others(1); Allah Baksh and Others v. Mirza Bashir-ud- Din and Others (2) and Lieut. Chaudhri Chattar Singh v. Mt. Shugni and Another(8).

pp. 68–69

We agree with the High Court in holding that partition is a right incident to the ownership of property and once the defendants are held as co-owners, their right to partition cannot be resisted.

p. 69

It was contended by Dr. Tek Chand that the appellants had acquired title by adverse possession over the defendants' share for more than 50 years. This plea was. raised in the plaint but evidently it was not pressed ~' for .no issue., was .frarrie\I, . ; no~. any Jipding , _r~corqeq. by . the trial <;:ourt, ,This poil)t ;is .,not tal<:t:n .even ,in: t.he ,. grounds 9£, appeal toi~h\s C()ur\., .The plea hj\S .. no;s1Jh· stance and '\Vas right!Y reject~d by the, High ... Cciurt .: on the ground . that, poss.ession. ,was • under,. an, arrangc;ment ... between the co-sharers and. no . question •of. adyer~epossession could ,ari~e µndq. the circum~tanc_es. ·

pp. 69–70

We· hold that there is no force .. in this appeal• and .. · dismiss it with costs. ·' ·· ~ - · · .. Appeal dismissed.".,,.

p. 70

. . ~. ~!

p. 70

.... SHRI.AUDI-i BEHAR! SINGH:

p. 70

v . .

p. 70

" .

p. 70

GAJADHAR JAIPURIA AND OTHERS:' [Mmm M~HAJAN C.J., Bip.N.

p. 70

N. H .. and· T. L. JJ.] .

p. 70

Banaras~Local qf Pre-emptiOn~Suth g · c~stom pre~mption'

p. 70

least ··prripertie.f ~ithin it prove~-

p. 70

person~ a~e ~atives ..

p. 70

righ~ of becom.~s .the lex ~he of

p. 70

a,· of ~

p. 70

and~.atta- ;.~

p. 70

(24 W.R. 95) and,,

p. 70

(32 Cal. 988) disapproved.. • ., .

p. 70

C1VIL APi>Ei:LA.Til · Ju'iUso1CTioN · Civil · Appeal No. 15of1951.'"' · " .. · "· "'" "

p. 70

·~

p. 70

Appeal from .the Judg'tµe~t. a11d .Qecree,, · dated,,thc."_. 29th Angus;, . 1944, of the High Court· of Judicature ,at . Allahabad (Mulla :ind Yorke JJ.) in .first , Appeal

p. 70