Nathoo Lal v. Durga Prasad. M<MChand Mah<ijan C. J, April.,, [1955] of alienation need be given ; it is enough if words are used of such amplitude as would convey full rights of ·ownership." The learned Judges of the High Court
were therefore clearly wrong in law in holding that the will having been made by the father in favour of his daughter, it should be presumed that he intended to . give her a limited life estate.
For. the reasons given above we allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the High Court decreeing the plaint- iff's suit and restore the decree of the trial Court dis- missing· the plaintiff's suit. In
the circumstances of this case we will make no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. CHHOTE KHAN,. DECEASED, REPRESENTED … BY HIS SON, HARMAT, AND OTHERS v. MAL KHAN AND OTHERS. [Suom
RANJAN DAs, . GHULAM HASAN and ·-,. B. JAGANNADHADAS JJ.] Wajih-Ul..arz-Entry r"egarding agreement therein-Whether holds good .after the expiry of period of Settlement. Held, that an entry regafding agrccinent in a Wajib-ul-arz holds good during the currency of the Settlement and dOcs not survive the expiry of the period of Settlement.
Hira and Others v. Muhamadi and Others (16 P.R. · 1915 at p. 89), Allah Bakhsh and Others v. Mirza Bashir·ud-Din and Others (1932 L.T.R. 56) and Lieut. Chaudhri Chattar Singh v. Mt . • · -4 Shugni and Another (A.LR. 1941 L.ah. 239) referred to.
. CmL APPELLATE JUR1sDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 61 of 1951. Appeal from the -Judgment and Decree· dated the 10th November; 1944, of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore in Civil Regular First Appeal No. 259 of
1942, arising out of the Judgment and Decree dated the 29th July; 1942, of the Court of the Extra Assist- ant Settlement Officer and · Assistant Collector · of · the . S.C.R. First Grade as Senior Sub-Judge, Gurgaon, in Suit No.
35 of 1940-41. Dr. Bakshi Tek Chand, (Ram Nath Chadha and Ganpat Rai, with him) for the appellants. Naunit Lal for respondent Nos. 1, 3, 7 to 11 and 13 to 19. 'y, 1954. April 21. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by GttULAM HASAN 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 Assist- ant Collector, First Grade, Gurgaon, as Senior Sub- .,). ordinate Judge, and dismissing the plaintiffs-appellants' suit. Dalmir, Dilmor ·and Chhinga were three brothers
and Amir Khan and Sharif Khan were the two colla- terals. Alif Khan was the son of Amir Khan. The present dispute is between the descendants of the five branches of the family . 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 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 Septem- ber 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 ChhoteKhan v.
Ma/Khan and Others. Ghulam Hasan], ·1954 ·Chhott Khan ·v . . Mal.Khan and ·Others. Ghulam Hasan J. • $TJPREME :COURT .REPORTS r.[1955] . ! ·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 1 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 1 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 contest- ing 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 con- testing defendants being proprietors, the right. of parti- tion was inherent in their right of .. ownership. . As a result of these findings the suit was dismissea.
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. 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 Dis- trict (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 , S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPOR'iffi: • • 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). ·
The documentary evidence regarding the title to the 'r · property in dispute ranges over a period of four Settle- ments, 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 (correspond-
ing to 1839-1862 · A.D.) which . was made payable by ,.J. Dalmir Lamberdar who is described as sole owner. The Settlement- papers were, however, lost during ·the mutiny -and after taking fresh measurements the settle-
ment 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) •
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
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 appe- ars 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 . ~ i'- the benefit. th~y ,ef!joy (P. 35 ; _. ,0. JI) .. This docun;ient is signed in token of verification by Dalmir Lamberdar,
1954" Chhote Khan v. Mal Khari and Othm; Ghulam Haian J. Chhole Ehan v. Mal Khan and Others. Chu/am Hasan J. [1955] c 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 arrange- ment 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). 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 i…. Patwari in the presence of Panchayat of the brother- hood. 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. 4 is a statement showing apportionment of Jama, (i.e.; Khewat money) in the village. After stating that r 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 be-
came owners of the produce · of the land without payment of rent · and also became entitled to profit and liable for loss. Paragraph 10 of the Wajib-ul-arz contains an agree- A ment 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. _.j We now come to the Settlement record of 1877.
S.C.R. P. 17 is an important document. Paragraph 1 which deals with the history of the village is reproduced below:- "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 vill- age, 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 pro- prietors. 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." 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 colla- terals whether or not it was originally intended for the benefit of the family as understood in its widest sense.
Paragraph 5 of the Wajib-ul-arz relating to the tenure of the village apd the mode of payment of revenue Chhot1 Kha11 v. Mal Khan and Others. Qhulam Hasan]. ChhoUKhaTi v. Mal Khan .anil.
Others. Ghulam Hastin J. . \''. ·"' '. . -~ ~ ~ : .,r . i/ 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 relation- ship. (P.: 15). This statement is consistent . only with: joint ·ownership.
\ .. 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). . , … 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). It appears that dming the currency of · this Settle-
ment two suits for .partition·· were filed ·in the · Revenue,.· Court but the partition was not allowed. (P. 5). Coming ·to the Settlemenr of 1903-08 we· 'find ,a State- ment 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,,ith- out 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. . · · ·• · 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. . _-. •• < Mehrab, · grandsll!). of Dalinir and one of the plaintiffs, who gave
eviden~e as P.W. 5 admitted tha:t defendant$ 67 ., 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 co- plaintiffs and that they did not challenge the saine. 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 admis-
sion made by the defendants in the course of the argu- ments. 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 jib- ·· ul-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 judg- · ment 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.
Chhote Kfian v;- Mal Khan and Others. Ghulam Hasan J. C/ihol1 Kho.11 , v. Mal Khan and · Others. Ghulom Hasan]. [1955} 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 conjunc- tion -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 unmistak- ably 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, re-
ferred 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 con- venient to hold the head or the most influential mem- ber .of the family as responsible for payment of the entire revenue leaving it to him to make such arrange-
meht 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. · · 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 4_ S.C.R. 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 satis-
fied 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 defend- ants. 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). We agree with the High Court in holding that parti- tion 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. It was contended by Dr. Tek Chand that the appel- lants 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 (1) 16 P.R. 1915 (p, 89). (3) A.I.R. 1941,Lah .. 239. (2) 1932 L.T.R. 56.
. .., ~' C/rhot• Khan v. Mal Khan and Others. Ghulam HaJan J. Chhote Khan v. Mal Khan-and Qthtrs.· · Ghul~m H6san J. April 03. 70 '. [195$]:.' 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 0the, High … Cciurt .: on the ground . that, poss.ession. ,was • under,. an, arrangc;ment … between the co-sharers and. no . question •of. adyer~e-
possession could ,ari~e µndq. the circum~tanc_es. We· hold that there is no force .. in this appeal• and .. · dismiss it with costs. ·' ·· ~ – · \;_,_ · ' .. Appeal dismissed.".,,.
"h•·· . …. . … : ~. ~! SHRI.AUDI-i BEHAR! SINGH: v . . GAJADHAR JAIPURIA AND OTHERS:' " . [Mmm · CHAN'D M~HAJAN C.J., Bip.N. KuMAR , •• MuKHERJEA, VIVIAN BosE, N. H .. BHAGWATJ. and·
T. L. VENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.] CustOf!1;-Pre-"emption-Ci'ty' of Pre-emptiOn~Suth ri"ght-lnciif.ent land. Banaras~Local of · 'prap<rty and Custom qf attailiin g · tO Held, that a local c~stom _of pre~mption' existS
in thC city· Of Banaras and the right attaches at least to all house· ··prripertie.f ·· situated ~ithin it arid no such incident of. custom is. prove~- which would make the 1'ight , a_vailab:le only · between . person~ .. who a~e
either ~atives of Banaras or .are domicile_d . therein. . . . , When a righ~ of pre-erription rests. upo_n cust9m it becom.~s .the lex loc_i or ~he .law of the place and affects all lands situated in th_at .. place irrespCctiVC of the
religion of ii.ationality-· or domicile' .of the . owners of the lands· except ·where ·.such incidents are prov.ed tO· be a,· part of the custom itself. ~ •. ·r • The right 'of ·pre'-cmption ·is an iricident of Pro.perty and~.atta- ches t0:· the land itself. . ;.~
· · … •J Byjnath -.:. Kapilmon (24 W.R. 95) and,, Parsashth Nath .;,, Dhanai (32 Cal. 988) disapproved.. • ., . .'. ,· C1VIL APi>Ei:LA.Til · Ju'iUso1CTioN ·: · Civil · Appeal No. 15of1951.'"' ·
" -; .. · "· "'" " \. • ·~ 'J·i. i4, •. Appeal from .the Judg'tµe~t. a11d .Qecree,, · dated,,thc."_. 29th Angus;, . 1944, of the High Court· of Judicature ,at . ·1 Allahabad (Mulla :ind Yorke JJ.)
in .first , Appeal