c [E BEGUM SURIYA RASIDD & ORS. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH August 28, 1968 [S. M. S!KRI, R. S. BACHAWAT AND K. S. HEGDB, JJ.] Jagir–"Naslan-bad-naslan·· and "batnan-bad-batnan", meaning of-
Jqir and muafi, difference between. The ruler of Bhopal granted a jagir .,. also muafi lands to the plain- tift's father. The grants were expressed to be for "naslan-bad-nalllan" and "batnan-bad-batnan" (descendant after descendant and generation after generation). On death of the plaintiff's father, his heirs were allowed to conlinue in p0sses.sion of the muafi lands and jagir under the oxpr..S orders of the darbar except for a ohort period during which it was managed by the Ruler. A fresh grant was made in favour of the plaintiff for life. A!fter the merger of tho Bhopal State in the Indian territory, the resp0ndent-State passed an order 'resuming the muafi. land, and took posse•- sion.
The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession, which wao dismissed. In appeal the High Court upheld the dismissal. During the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff died. In appeal by the plaintiff's
heini. thfa Court. HELD : The muafi. grants were not hereditary or pe!rpetual and the appellants could not claim title as muafidars. The Arabic expressions "oaslao-bad.-naslan" and "batnan-bad-batnan" in a grant normally import a heritable estate.
But the surrounding circumstances and the occasion of the grant may show an intention that the grant is for life only. The evidence on the record satisfactorily established that the expressions
"naslan-bad-naslan" and "batnan-bad-batnan" in a grant of jagir by the Bhopal darbar were never supposed either by the grantor or g'rante.e to convey a hereditary estate. They were regarded as nothing more than
a recognition that the claim of the heir to the renewal of .the sanad would bo favourably considered. There is a distinction between a muafi and jagir. 'Ihe former is a r¢mission of land revenue
whereas the latter is an assignment of land revenue of the grantee. On the evidence it has been rightly held that in Bhopal State the expression "naslan-bad-naslan" and batnan-bad-batnan in the muafi grant had the same meaning as .in a· jagir grant. Raja Bajrang Bahadur Singh v.
Thakurain Bekhraj Kuer, [1953] S.C.R. 232, 240, 242, referred to. CM:L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1166 of 1965 .. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated March 19, 1963 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in First
Appeal No. 238 of 1959. Sar;oo Prasad and G. S. Sanghi, for the appellants. • l. N. Shroff, for the respondent. L!Sup.C.1./69–9 t SUPREME COUR'f REPORTS [1969] J s.c.R. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Bachawal, J. General Obaidullah Khan was 1he second son of Nawab Sultan Jehan Begum, the Ruler of Bhopal. The Bhopal ruler granted a jagir as also muafi lands 10 Obaidullah Khan. The land known as kali parade in village Chhola was
granted under the sanad muali dated April I 0, 1916 in ex- change for another land. The land known as Ban Ganga was granted under 'the sanad muafi dated November 23, 1919. The jagir and the muafi grants were expressed to be for "naslan-bad- naslan" and "batnan-bad-batnan" (descendant after descendant aind generation after generation). Obaidullah Khan died
in 1924 leaving behind him his two sons Saiycd-ul-Zafar Khan and Rashid-uz-Zafar Khan. On his death a question arose whether his lands should be attached, but under the express orders of the Bhopal darbar his heirs were allowed to continue in posses- sion except for 3 years during which the muafi lands and the jagir were managed by the Surfe-Khas, the department manag- ing the personal property of the Ruler.
Saiyed-ul-Zafar Khan died in 1945. An application for the grant of a fresh sanad was made as early as 1927 but no action was taken until 1946. Under orders of the Ruler a fresh sanad was issued on Febru- ary 23, 1949 granting a jagir 10 Rashid-uz-Zafar Khan for his lite time and simultaneously the grantee executed an agreement promising to abide by the tenns and conditions of the grant. No decision was taken by the Bhopal darbar for the issue of a fresh sanad to the heirs of Obaidullah Khan.
The Bhopal State merged in India in 1949. On May 10, 1954 the Chief Com- missioner, Bhopal, passed an order resuming the muafi lands. A writ petition filed by Rashid-uz-Zafar Khan
was dismissed and he was relegated to his suit. On June 30. I 956 the Gov- ernment took possession of the muafi lands. In 1958 Rashid- uz-Zafar Khan filed a suit against the State of Madhya Pradesh for recovery of possession of the lands and mesne profits. The
Trial Court dismissed the suit. Rashid-uz-Zafar Khan filed First Appeal No. 238 of 1959 in the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal he died and his heirs were brought on the record. Both the courts below concurrently held that the grants of the muafi lands to Obaidullah Khan did not endure beyond his life time and in the absf!llCe of fresh sanads his
heirs had no right to the muafi lands. They rejected the contention that 1he grants were hereditary. The present appeal has been pre- ferred by the heirs of Rashid-uz-Zafar Khan after
obtaining special leave. c The main question· in this appeal is whether the grants in favour of Obaidullah Khan were hereditary or were for his life only. Ii is well settled that the Arabic expressions "naslan-ba&- naslan" and "batnan-bad-batnan" in a grant normally import a JI
BEGUM SURIYA v. M. P. STATE (Bachawat, l.) heritable estate. But the surrounding circumstances and the occasion of the grant may show an intenti?n that the grant is for life only.
In Raja Bajrang !Jahadur Singh v. Thakuram Bekhraj Kuer (') B. K. Mukherjea J. observed : "The learned counsel for the appellant naturally lays stress upon the words "absolute owner" (malik Kami!) and "generation. after gene!a· tion" ( naslan-bad-naslan) used in reference to the mtercst which Dhuj Singh was to take under the will. These wo~ds, 1t cainnot be disputed, are descriptive of a heritable and alienable estate in the donee, and they connote fnll proprietary rights unless there is something in the context or in the surrounding circumstances which indicate that absolute rights were not intended to be con- ferred." The Court held that a "naslan-bad-naslan" grant under a will on its true construction conveyed an estate for the life of the grantee. In Gulabdas Jugjivandas v. Colt'ector of Surat(~) the Judicial Committee held that the grant of a jag1r by the Raia ot Satara was for the life of the grantee though the grant was expressed to be in favour of the grantee with his
descendants and children. Sir Robert P. Collier observed : "a jagir must be taken prima fade to be an estate only for life, although it may possibly be granted in such terms as to make it hereditary." The evidence on the record satisfactorily establishes that the expressions "naslan-bad-naslan" and "batnan-bad-batnan" in a grant of jagir by the Bhopal darbar were never supposed either by the grantor or grantee to convey a hereditary estate.
They were regarded as nothing more than a recognition that the claim of the h_eir to the renewal of the sanad would be favourably con- sidered. Exhibits D-20 to 31 show that a "naslan-bad-naslan"
jagir did not automatically devolve on the heirs of the grantee on his death. The practice was to attach the jagir on the death of the jagirdar pending orders from the Ruler. Until a fresh
sanad was issued, the heirs of the original grantee had no title ro the jagir. The Ruler could in his absolute discretion make or refuse to make a fresh grant. Though the jagir in favour of the plaintiff's father was expressed to be for naslan-bad-naslan the grant lapsed on his death and a fresh grant was made in favour of. the plaintiff for his life.
A Committee appointed by the Bhopal darbar published a history of "naslan-bad-naslan" jagirs. The plaintiff was a member of the Committee. The history shows that the Bhopal darbar refused
to recognise naslan-bad-naslan jagirs as enduring beyond the life time of the grantee. In Ex. D-3 the Private Secretary of the Ruler of Bhopal stated : "T!1 view of. the prevailing orders, such jagir
was . to b~ reduced m P!Oport1on to the distance existing' in relat1onsh1p between )Ugirdar. and Ruler, i.e .• first half, then one- tlfird and after that rights of jagir abated." In his deposition the plaintiff stated :
"In case of all jagirdars, on their death their (1) [1953] S.C.R. 232, 240, 242. (2) L.R. 61.A. 54. (1969) i S.C.R. papers were placed before the Ruler to obtain his sanction for renewing their jagirs in favour of their
successors. After the Ruler's sanction, a new sanad was issued in favour of the succes- sor. . . . During his regime, His Highness the Ruler of Bhopal, was a complete sovereign in respect of the mternal
affairs of Bhopal State. He could refuse to grant or recognise "naslan- bad-naslan" jagir by dispossessing an heir of a jagirdar and not allowing him to continue in possession for any period." D.W. I :,Johammad Adil, Clerk, Revenue Department, Bhopal, stated : "The progeny has a right in naslan-bad-naslan 1agir and batnan- bad-batnan jagir.
But in spite of that the Ruler has full right to grant or not to grant the jagir. In respect of such sanads on the death of the sanad-dar (sanad holder) an enquiry used to be made regarding his heirs.
On the death of the jagirdar the jagir used to be under attachment during enquiry. If the Ruler did not wish to grant the jagir an order of forefeiture used to be pas.sed." The plaintiff was unable to give a
single instance where the devolution of naslan-bad-naslan jagir on the death of the grantee was automatic. In agreement with the courts below we hold that the expressions "naslan-bad-naslan" and "batnan- had-batnan" in a grant of jagir by the Bhopal darbar did
not connote a hereditary estate. The change of government in 1949 did not give the jagir a greater fixity of :enure than that enjoyed under the Bhopal rulers. TI1ere is a distinction between a
muafi and a jagir. The former is a remission of land revenue whereas the latter is an :1ssignment of land revenue to the grantee. But the question is whether the expressions "naslan-had-nasl:rn"
and "batnan-had- batnan" in the muafi grant to the son of the Bhopal ruler had the same meaning as in a jagir grant. The courts below con- currently held that in Bhopal State the expressions "naslan-bad- naslann and "batnan-bad-batnan" in the muafi grant had
the same meaning as in a jagir grant. Having regard to the special facts and the course of trial in this case, we are not inclined to disturb this concurrent finding. In the trial court the case was
fought and evidence was led on the footing that the expres- sions had the same meaning in both jagir and muafi j(fants. There is evidence to show that the muafi grant in favour of the Ruler's son was liable to be attached on the death of the grantee, and tile usual procedure of attachment was not followetfin thi.; case as a matter of !!race under special orders of the Bhopal darbar. lt was argued that the heirs of Obaidullah Khan were accept- ed a.s muatidars by the government.
It appears that when two persons named Amzad Ali and lkram Ahmed wanted to buy aortions of the land, they obtained the permission of the Bh~l darbilr and then paid the price to th~ plaintiff.
On the acquisi- tion of a portion of the land, compensation was allowed to be c c BEGUM SURIYA v. M. P. STATE (Bachawat, J.) 873 • paid to the plaintiff and was not claimed by the government. Thls evidence does not establish that the plaintiff was accepted as the muafidar in respect of the lands.
Admittedly, no sanad was issued to him. In agreement with the courts below we hold that the muafi grants were not hereditary or perpetual and the appellants cannot claim title as muafidars.
Mr. Sarjoo Prasad submitted that the appellants were en- titled to recover possession of the muafi lands on the basis of an alternative claim. He contended that the heirs of Obaidullah
Khan, the original muafidar, having continued in possession of the muafi lands after his death, they became khatedars or tenants of the Bhopal darbar and occupants under the Bhopal State Land Revenue Act \Act No. IV of 1932). In support of his conten- tion he relied on Circular No. 10 of the Bhopal Government dated January 28, 1930 and on secs. 2(7), 2(15), 52(2) and 54 of the Bhopal State Land Revenue Act.
He also referred us to tjle pleadings and issues 1, 4, and 9 and paragraphs 18, 19 and 21 of the judgment of the trial court. The judgment of tho High Court did not deal with the contention. The subse- quent order of the High Court dated July 24, 1963 indicates that the point was raised at the hearing of the appeal but the High Court thought that nothing could be said against the find- ings in paragraph 19 of the trial court. We think that the omission of the High Court to deal with the contention was due to some misapprehension.
The ends of justice require that the matter should be remanded to the High Court so that it may decide the point. In the result, we affirm the finding that the muafi grants were for the life of the grantee onlv and that the appellants can- not claim title to the suit lands as muafidars.
The. decree of dismissal of First Appeal No. 238 of 1959 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the High Court so that the Hi~h Court may d~al with and decide the remaining contentions ~entioned above. m accordance with law.
There will be no order as to costs m this Court. Y.P. Appeal allowed and case remanded.