# BEGUM SURIYA RASIDD & ORS v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

- **Citation:** [1969] 1 S.C.R. 869
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1968-08-28
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1166 of 1965
- **Bench:** S. M. S!Kri, R. S. Bachawat, K. S. Hegdb
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/begum-suriya-rasidd-ors-v-state-of-madhya-pradesh-4533
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Jagir--"Naslan-bad-naslan··
and
"batnan-bad-batnan", meaning ofJqir and muafi, difference between.
The ruler of Bhopal granted a jagir .,. also muafi lands to the plaintift'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
1
'
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.
H
Sar;oo Prasad and G. S. Sanghi, for the appellants.
• l. N. Shroff, for the respondent.
L!Sup.C.1./69--9
•
t
•
•
870
SUPREME COUR'f REPORTS
[1969] J s.c.R.

## Text

A
B
c
D
[E
F
G
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 ofJqir and muafi, difference between.
The ruler of Bhopal granted a jagir .,. also muafi lands to the plaintift'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
1
'
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.
H
Sar;oo Prasad and G. S. Sanghi, for the appellants.
• l. N. Shroff, for the respondent.
L!Sup.C.1./69--9
•
t
•
•
870
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
exchange 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-badnaslan" 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 possession except for 3 years during which the muafi lands and the
jagir were managed by the Surfe-Khas, the department managing 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 February 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 Commissioner, 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 Government took possession of the muafi lands.
In 1958 Rashiduz-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 preferred by the heirs of Rashid-uz-Zafar Khan
after
obtaining
special leave.
A
c
D
E
F
G
The main question· in this appeal is whether the grants in
H
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
I
A
B
-
D
E
JI
G
H
BEGUM SURIYA v. M. P. STATE (Bachawat, l.)
871
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 conferred." 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 considered.
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 onetlfird 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.
•
•
•
872
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(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 successor. . . .
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
"naslanbad-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 batnanbad-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 "batnanhad-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-hadbatnan" in the muafi grant to the son of the Bhopal ruler had
the same meaning as in a jagir grant.
The courts below concurrently held that in Bhopal State the expressions "naslan-badnaslann 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 expressions 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 accepted 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 acquisition of a portion of the land, compensation was allowed to be
A
B
-
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
•
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 entitled 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 contention 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 subsequent 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 findings 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 cannot 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.