Deobans Singh and others vs Bahuria Chandra Kali Kuer

Mohammad Noor, J.—These appeals are directed against the decrees of a Subordinate Judge of Gaya reversing those of the Munsif of Aurangabad. They arise out of ejectment suits instituted by the respondent against the appellants. The. plaintiff''s case was that the defendant-appellants held various pieces of land on condition that out of their produce they would supply the plaintiff''s amlas, when they visit their villages, with rations, and as the defendants refused to-do so, they were liable to ejectment. The defendants claimed that the lands in question were their jagir lands and they were not liable to ejectment.

The learned Munsif who tried the suits held that the plaintiff failed to prove that the lands were her bakasht lands and that they were let out on conditions under which the defendants, were liable to ejectment. He further held that no notice to quit was proved in the suits. The learned Subordinate Judge has however given the plaintiff decrees for ejectment. He has held that the status of the defendants was something like service tenure-holders, and their refusal to perform the service made them liable to ejectment. The defendants have preferred these second appeals.

In my opinion the view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge in appeal is correct. The lands have been recorded in the Record of Rights as jagir butadi Butad means rations. It is obvious therefore the lands were granted to the defendants on conditions alleged by the plaintiff, namely, that out of their produce they were to supply rations to the plaintiff''s amlas whenever they visited the villages. Any surplus was to be utilized by them. This presumption of the Record of Rights has not been rebutted. The learned Munsif was wrong in expecting the plaintiff to prove the conditions when the Record of Rights itself gave sufficient indication of the status of the defendants. A jagir like this is somewhat unusual. At any rate, no similar case has been found in any reported decisions.

We shall have to apply to this kind of tenure the principle of service tenures. The learned Subordinate Judge relying upon the case of Bijoychand Mahatab v. Kalipada Chatterjee AIR 1914 Cal 200: 20 IC 78: 41 Cal 57 has held the lands to be service tenures. No doubt, it cannot be said that the conditions alleged by the plaintiff are such as to make the tenures exactly service tenures, but there is equally no doubt that they are somewhat analogous to service tenures. No fixed quality of grain was deliverable by the defendants and it cannot be a raiyati holding. The defendants were to perform some services It is obvious that the tenures were created many years ago when there were no facilities for communication and it was difficult for amlas of a landlord, when touring in villages, to carry supply of food with them. One can safely presume that the zamindar created these tenures in order to facilitate the supply of rations to his amlas when they visited out of the way places where there were no markets or shops to buy provisions, and, in my opinion, the principles of service tenures should be applied to tenures in question. It is not the defendant''s case that the claim for rations has been either exorbitant or unreasonable. Had it been the case, it would have been open to the Courts to refuse ejectment on equitable grounds; but in this case the defendants absolutely refused to perform the obligations under which the lands were granted to them as is obvious from the Record of Rights. Such refusal entails the penalty of ejectment without notice, and in my opinion, the learned Subordinate Judge has rightly passed the decrees. The appeals fail and must be dismissed with costs.

Agarwala, J.

I agree.