LexRAJA RAJINDER CHAND versus SUKHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
RAJA RAJINDER CHAND
v.
SUKHI
(and connected appeals)
{JAGANNADHADAS, VENKATARAMA AYYAR,
B. P. SINHA and S. K.1DAs JJ.]
889
Right to Royal trees-Conquest of territory-Grant of Jagir by
conqueror-Title to trees within Jagir-Rights of the Jagirdar-
Grant-Oonstruction-Entries in Wajib·ul-arz-Scope and legal
effect-Ala malik and Adna malik, Meaning of-Punjab Land-Revenue
Act, 188'1 (Piinjab XVII of 188'1 ), ss. 31, 1'4.
The appellant as the proprietor of N ada.un Jagir sued to estab-
lish his title to chil (pine) trees standing on lands within the J agir
but belonging to the respondents, on the ground that the trees be-
longed to him as ala malik (superior landlord) and not to the res-
pondents who were only adna maliks (inferior landlords).
The
J agir originally formed part of the territory belonging to the rulers
of Ke.ngra who were Sovereigns entitled to<the chil trees. In 1827-
28 Maharaja Ranjit Singh conquered the territory and gramed
N adaun as J agir to Raja. J odhbir Chand who was the illegitimate son
of Raja Sansar Chand, the last independent ruler of Kangra.
In
1846 as a result of 'the first Sikh War the terrHory ca.me under the
dominion of the British, who granted a Se.nad in favour of Raja.
J odhbir Chand in recognition of his services. After the second Sikh
War, the British granted a. fresh Sanad in respect of the Jagir of
Nadaun in 1848.
Subsequent to the grant, there were settlements·
in 1892-93 (O'Brien's Settlement), 1899-1900 (Andersoµ's Settle·
ment) and 1910· 1915 (Settlement of Messrs Middleton and Shuttle-
worth), and there were some entries in the Wajib-ul-a.rz supporting
the title of the Raja. to the chil trees. The appellant who is a direct.
lineal descendant of Raja. Jodhbir Chand claimed title to the trees,
.firstly, as the representative of the independent Ka.ngra. rulers,
secondly, on the basis of the grant given by the British Government
and, thirdly, on the strength of the entries in the Wajib·ril-arz.
'
Held: (1) The Sovereign right of the independent Kangra. rulers
to chil trees passed by conquest to the Sikh rulers and subsequently
to the British; Raja. Jodbbir Chand was only a. Jagirdar under the
Sikhs and the British, and the appellant could not therefore lay
claim to the chil trees on the basis of the Sovereign right of the in.
dependent rulers.
(2) The grant of 1848 on its true construction was primarily
an assignment of land revenue and whatever other rights might
have been included, the right to a.II chil trees on the proprietary
and cultivated lands of the respondents was not within the grant.
116
1956
October 23.·
1956
Raja Raji.nder
Chand
••
Sukhi
890
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1956]
It is well settled that the general rule is that grants m•de by
the.Sovereign a.re to be.construed most favourably fortheSovereign;
but if the in ten ti on is obvious, a fair and liberal interpretation must
be given to the grant to enable it to take effect, and the operative
part, if plainly expressed, must take effect notwithstanding qualifi·
cations ·in the recitals. In cases where the grant is for valuable
consideration it is construed in favour of .the grantee, for the honour
of the Sovereign, and where two constructions are possible, one
valid and the other void, that which is valid ought to be preferred,
for, the honour of the Sovpreign ought to be more regarded than
the Sovereign's profit.
(3) Wajib-ul-arz or vil!age administration paper is a record of
existing rights not expressly provided for by law and of customs
and usage regarding the rights and liabilities in the estate, and
though under s. 44 of the Punjab Land· Revenue Act, 1887, it is
presumed to be true, it is not to be used for the creation ·or new
rights and liabilities. Entries in the Wajib-ul-arz with regard to the
right of the Raja in respect of chil trees standing on the cultivated
and proprietary lands of the adna-maliks, did not show any existing
custom or usage of the village, the right being a Sovereign right,
and the appellant could not rely on the said entries as evidence of a
grant or surrender or relinquishment of a Sovereign right by Govern-
ment in his favour.
'
Th&-expressions "ala malik" and "adna malik" explaind in the
context of the Settlement reports relating to N adaun J agir.
Venkata Nara•imha Appa Row Bahadur v. Rajah Narayya
Appa Row Bahadur ([1879] L.R. 7 I.A. 38), Dakas Khan v. Ghulam
Kasim Khan (AExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.