« AnteriorContinua »
BABoo GUNESH DUTT
Kishun Singh coming of age in the year 1802, Vadhoo Singh presented him to the Collector, stating the fact of his having made the grant eighteen years before, and stating the fact that his son had now come of age, and praying that the estate might be trans- MOHESHUR ferred out of his own name into the name of K’ishun and others. Singh, and that is done by the Collector. And what is the effect of that? Why, the effect is:--to separate the property from the Zemindary ; to make Kishur Singh at once hold from the Government, to make Kishun Singh liable to pay the revenue assessed upon it, and not to the Raja, but to the Government.
Then, what is the case with respect to the other grants? They are quite different. Where an estate is granted to a younger son as a Baboo allowance, he continues to pay the rent and assessment to the Raja ; the property is never separated from the Zemindary at all. The cases, therefore, of absolute grants, and of grants by way of Baboo allowance, are essentially different in their nature.
Let us see, then, in what way the Pergunnahs thus giren are entered in the Collector's books. If they were entirely transferred under a deed of grant, they would be transferred as such into the names of those persons to whom they were given. If they are made as Baboo allowances, they will be described as Baboo allowances, and the owners of those Baboo allowances will have to pay the revenue, not to the Government, but to the Raja in whose Principality the property is situate. Upon that there is no question at all. We find with respect to each of those Pergunnahs, the mode in which they were entered in the
Collector's books, and that they are especially entered
as Baboo allowances, and entered immediately in GUNESH LUTT these terms: "Jumma IVassilbakee, or revenue ac
“ count for the whole year, of the Pergunnah Jedee, in Moheshur the Sircar of Tirhoot, the property of Maharajah and others. Koonwur Baboo Kirut Singh, for his support as a
Baboo." “ Jumma Wassilbakce, or revenue account for the whole year, of the Pergunnah of Burhahpoor Ragho, in the Sircar of Tirhoot, the property of Maharaja Koonwur Baboo Gobind Singh, for his support as a Baboo.” Is it possible to raise a doubt upon this? You have these entries made upon the petition of the Raja stating that he has made the grants for the Baboo allowances; you have those grants recognised by Kirut Singh and Gobind Singh, who held them, and they settle accounts distinctly upon the footing that they are Baboo allowances; they settle accounts upon a totally different principle from that upon which they would have been settled if they had been distinct grants like that to Kishen Singh.
It is useless to make further observations upon a case which, as to this part of it, at least, is so perfectly plain. But with respect to the deed of 1806 thus sworn to by witnesses who clearly are unworthy of credit, it may be remembered that every one of those respectable landowners whose evidence is given on behalf of the first Respondent distinctly state that there is no usage to grant land upon the occasion of these investitures, though there is a usage to make presents of jewels and of money, and, I think, three, or perhaps more, of those witnesses were present at this very investiture of Gobind Singh himself, and not one of them was asked by Die Appellant—"Was
BABoo GUNESH DUIT
there such a deed made ?” “Did not you see that
MAHARAJA ships, neither upon the one point nor upon the other, MOHESHUR are able to entertain any doubt.
and others. They were much struck by an observation made by the Appellant's counsel upon the judgment which had been pronounced in this case; and they certainly had been led from their statement, which was a perfectly fair one, but from a misapprehension they had entertained of the nature of the two suits, to suppose that the case had been decided against Gobind Singh upon the ground of acquiescence, because it had been previously decided against K’irut Singh upon that ground. Now, it is quite obvious, that Kirut Singh might acquiesce and that Gobind Singh might not, but the case of acquiescence as against Gobind Singh is precisely the same as, only much stronger than, that against Kirut Singh ; for with respect to Gobind Singh, he never during his life at any time, either by himself or by others on his behalf during his minority, made the slightest representation of his possession of this Pergunnah being otherwise than under the deed of 1807, and according to the entries made upon the Collector's books.
Their Lordships have looked through the report which was cited by the Appellant of the case of Muha Raj Kowur Basdeo Singh v. Muha Rajah Roodur Singh Buhadur, and it is quite clear from that report that there was other evidence, probably a good deal of important evidence, which we have not before us upon the present occasion, but which it is wholly unneces
BABoo GUNESH DUTT
sary we should have; and we advert to that now
only for this purpose, that in dismissing the two suits SINGH. at the same time, the Court below do not say, we
exclude the consideration of the family custom in MAHARAJA MOHESHUR the Appellant's suit, and we exclude the consideraand others. tion of the validity of the deed of 1807, independent
of acquiescence; but having these same points raised in both suits, both being for this purpose consolidated, we will pronounce our opinion upon that point in the other suit, and upon the acquiescence in this.
Upon all these points, therefore, though the case is one of much complication, and has been argued with great ability, which might have thrown some doubt, if it had been possible that any doubt could be entertained with respect to it, their Lordships must come to the conclusion of humbly advising Her Majesty that this appeal should be dismissed, and with costs.
GUDADHUR PURSHAD TEWARRE
On appeal from the Sudder Dewanny A duwlut at
want of effec
tion within the time
THIS was a motion upon petition, to restore an ap- 29th of June, peal which had been dismissed for want of prosecution, pursuant to the fifth rule of Her Majesty's Order in Appeal reCouncil of the 13th of June, 1853 (a), six months being dishaving elapsed from the arrival of the transcript and missed for registration in the Council Office, and no effectual tual prosecustep taken for the prosecution of the appeal.
The petition stated that the transcript arrived, and limited by the the appeal was registered at the Council Office on the Order in the 28th of July, 1853; and that on the 1st of the 13th of February, 1854, notice was given by the Registrar the new rules
having been * Present : Members of the Judicial Committee, --The Right only recently Hon. the Lord Justice Knight Bruce, the Right Hon. Sir Edward adopted by Ryan,the Right Hon. the Lord Justice Turner, and the Right Hon. Court at CalSir John Patteson, Knt.
cutta, and tho Appellant
in ignorance (a) See Rules, 5 Moore's Ind. App. Cases, ix.
of their existence, being
engaged in taking steps to prosecute the appeal within the time and according to
the practice previously existing. VOL. VI.