AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Das, J.—The only question in this appeal is whether the transaction of the 3rd Aghran 1285 B.S. was one of sale or one of lease. The document is described as a khas kobala; and there is very little doubt to my mind that the parties regarded the transaction as one of sale. The consideration money was arrived at on a calculation of the annual profits of the lands conveyed. It was ascertained that the annual profit was Rs. 7-13-0; and deducting therefrom Rs. 1-1-0 payable by the transferor as the moghli, the net profit was found to be Rs. 6-12-0. The transferor conveyed the land to the transferee for a consideration which was settled at 18 times the net annual profits of the lands. The critical passage in the document runs as follows:
I have myself got the following lands as bounded below, namely," and the boundaries are given, "In all three items of lands about 17 bighas in area, the annual profits of these lands amount to Rs. 7-13-0 only, out of which deducting Rs. 1-1-0 moghli, annual rent is Rs. 6-12-0 only and receiving the sum of Rs. 121-8 0 only as 18 times of the annual profit I sell the said lands to you. From this day forth you become fully entitled to the said lands and are empowered to sell and make a gift of the same and paying yearly Rs. 1-1-0 only moghli to me and to my heirs and legal representatives from 1286 B.S., you become entitled from this day from generation to generation by cultivating the same yourself or by settlement of tenants and to that I or my hairs and representatives shall never make any objection.
It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the respondents were the holders of a subordinate interest since Rs. 1-1-0 was payable by them as moghli to the appellants, but it is to be pointed out that this moghli of Re. 1-1-0 was payable by the appellants who were the transferors to the their superior landlord and did not constitute a profit in their hands when paid by the respondents to them. The term "moghli" is a word of doubtful meaning and at best imports no more than that the rent assessed represented a proportion of the Government revenue. [Nawagarh Goal Co. Ltd. v. Behai Lal Trigunait (1917) 20 CWN 1135.] There is very little doubt that the sum of Re. 1-1-0 represented the proportion of the Government revenue assessed on the lands conveyed. In no sense of the term does it constitute rent. That being so, there is nothing to show that the respondents were the holders of a subordinate interest in relation to the appellants. In my opinion they are the holders of coordinate interest.
In my opinion, the question was correctly decided by the learned Judge in the Court below and I must dismiss this appeal with costs.
Adami, J.
I agree.