# RAJA RAJINDER CHAND v. SUKHI

- **Citation:** [1956] 1 S.C.R. 889
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1956
- **Bench:** Jagannadhadas, Venkatarama Ayyar, B. P. Sinha, S. K.1DAs
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/raja-rajinder-chand-v-sukhi-1277
- **Pages:** 27

## Headnote

889
Right to Royal trees-Conquest of territory-Grant of Jagir by
conqueror-Title to trees within Jagir-Rights of the JagirdarGrant-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 establish his title to chil (pine) trees standing on lands within the J agir
but belonging to the respondents, on the ground that the trees belonged to him as ala malik (superior landlord) and not to the respondents 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 182728 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 Shuttleworth), 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 Government in his favour.

## Text

_Characters 0–39,562 of 58,853. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39562 for what follows._

-
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 JagirdarGrant-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 establish his title to chil (pine) trees standing on lands within the J agir
but belonging to the respondents, on the ground that the trees belonged to him as ala malik (superior landlord) and not to the respondents 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 182728 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 Shuttleworth), 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 Government 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 (A.l.R. 1918 P.O. 4) and Gurbakhsh Singh v. Mit.
Partapo ([1921] I.L.R. 2 Lah. 346), referred to.
CIVIL .APPELLATE JuRIBDIOTION:
Civil Appeals
Nos. 196 to 201 of 1953.
Appeals from the judgment and decrees of the
Punjab High Court dated December 30, 1949, in
Civil Regular Appeals Nos. 1567, 1568, 1569, 1570,
1573 and 1574 of 1942 arising out of the decrees dated
July 31, 1942, of the Court of the District Judge,
Hoshiarpur in Appeals Nos. 104/35 of 1941-42, 101/32
of 1941, 103/34 of 1941/42, 15/73 of 1941, 102/33 of
1941/42 and 120 of 1941 arising out of the decrees
dated July 24, 1941, of the Court of Subordinate
Judge, ~th Class, Kangra in Suits Nos. 544, 548,
545, 547, 546 and 549 of 1940.
Rang Beharilal and K. R. Ohaudhury, for the
appellant.
..
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
891
Ganpat Rai, for the respondent.
S. M. Sikri, Advocate-General for Punjab, Jindra
Lal and R.H. Dhebar, for the Intervener (State of
Punjab).
1956. October 23.
'.l'he Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
S. K. DAS J.-These are six appeals by the plaintiff Raja Rajinder Chand, the superior landlord (alamalik) of Nadaun Jagir in the district of Kangra. He
brought six suits in the Court of the Subordinate
Judge of Kangra for a declaration that he was the
owner of all pine ( chil-pinus longifolia) trees standing
on the lands of the defendants within the said Jagir
and for a permanent injunction restraining the latter
from interfering with his· rights of ownership and
extraction of resin from the said trees. He also claime.d
specified sums as damages for the loss caused to him
from the tapping of pine trees by different defendants
from March 24, 1940, up to the date when the suits
were brought. The defendants, who are the adnamaliks (inferior landlords), pleaded that they were
the owners in possession of the lands on which the
trees stood, that the trees were their property, and
that the plaintiff had no right to the trees nor bad he
ever exercised any right of possession over them.
Three questions arose for decision on the pleadings
of the parties. The first question was-whether all
pine trees standing on the lands in suit were the property of the plaintiff, i.e., the present appellant. The
second question was one of limitation, and the third
question related to the quantum of damages claimed
by the appellant.
The learned Subordinate Judge, who dealt with the
suits in the first instance, held that the present appellant had failed to prove his ownership of the trees.
He further held that the suits were barre.d by time.
On the question of damages, he held that if the appellant's claim to ownership of the trees were established,
some of the defendants in four of the suits would be
liable for small amounts of damages. In view, how1956
Raja Rajiuder
Chand
v.
Sukhi
1956
Raja Rajinder
ChtJnd
v.
Sukhi
S. I(, Das],
S92
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1956)
ever, of his findings on the questions of ownership
!!-nd limitation, he dismissed the suits. Raja Rajinder
Chand then preferred appeals from the judgment and
decrees of the learned Subordinate Judge, and the
appeals were heard by the learned District Judge of
Hoshiarpur. The latter reversed the finding of the
learned Subordinate Judge on the question of ownership and held that the present appellant had established his right to the trees in question. He also
reversed thefinding of the learned Subordinate Judge
on the question of limitation, but accepted bis finding
as to damages. Accordingly, be allowed the appeals,
set aside the judgment and decrees of the learned
Subordinate Judge, and gave the appellant the declaration and order of injunction be had ask_ed for, as
also damages in four of the suits as assessed by the
learned Subordinate Judge. The defendants then
preferred second appeals to the Punjab High Court.
On the main question as to whether the present appellant bad been able to establish bis right to the trees,
the learned Judges of the High Court differed from
the learned District Judge and, agreeing with the
learned Subordinate Judge, held that the present
appellant bad not been able to establish bis right to
the trees. On the question of limitation, however,
they agreed with the learned District Judge. In view
of their finding that the appellant bad failed to establish his right to the trees, the appeals were allowed
and the suits brought by the appellant were dismissed.
The High Court gave a certificate that the cases fulfilled the requirements of sections 109(c) and llO of
the Code of Civil Procedure. These six appeals have
come to this Court on that certificate. We have heard
these appeals together, as the questions which arise
are the same. The present judgment will govern all
the six appeals.
The short but important question which arises in
these appeals is whether the present appellant has
been able to establish bis right to all pine ( chil) trees
standing on the suit lands of the defendants. The
question is of some importance, as it affects the rights
of ala and adna maliks in Nadaun Jagir. The res-
--
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
893
pondents have not contested before us the correctness of the finding of two of the Courts below that
the suits were not barred by time; therefore, the question of limitation is no longer a live question and
need not be further referred to in this judgment.
Though the main question which arises in these six
appeals is a short one, a satisfactory answer thereto
requires an examination of the history of the creation
of Nadaun Jagir, of the land revenue and revisional
settlements made of the said Jagir from time to time,
and of the v;arious entries made in the record-of-rights
prepared in'the course of those settlements. Before
we advert to that history, it is necessary to indicate
here the nature of the claim made by the present
appellant. The plaints of the six suits were very
brief and did not give sufficient particulars of the
claim made by the appellant. We may take the plaint
in Suit No. 544 of 1940 by way of an example; in
para 1 it was stated that the land in question in that
suit was in tappa Badhog and the appellant was the
superior landlord thereof; then came para 2 which
said-
"The land is situate in Nadaun Jagir. All the
pine trees standing on the aforesaid land belong to
the plaintiff. He alone enjoys benefit of those trees.
This has always been the practice throughout".
In a later statement of replication dated October 26,
1940, the plaintiff-appellant gave some more particulars of his claim. The learned Subordinate Judge,
who tried the suits in the first instance, observed that
the present appellant based his claim to ownership of
the trees on three main grounds: first, on the ground
that the land itself on which the trees stood belonged
formerly to the ancestors of the present appellant
(namely, the independent rulers of Kangra) and they
gave the land to the ancestors of the adna maliks but
retained their right of ownership in all pine trees;
secondly, after the conquest of Kangra by the British,
the rights of ownership in the pine trees belonged to
the Britieh Government and the rights were assigned
to Raja Jodhbir Chand, the first grantee of Nadaun
Jagir; and thirdly, the right of the appellant in the
1956
Raja Rajinder
Chand
v.
Suk hi
S. K. Das].
1956
Raja Rajinder
Chand
v.
Suk hi
S. K, DasJ,
894
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1956]
trees had been "vouchsafed" by the entries made in
the Wajib-ul-arz and recognised in several judicial
decisions. The Courts below considered the claim of
the appellant on the aforesaid three grounds, and we
propose to consider these grounds in the order in
which we have stated them.
It is now necessary to advert to the history of the
creation of Nadaun Jagir so far as it is relevant for
considering the claim of the appellant on the first two
grounds. Admittedly, the suit lands lie in Badhog
and Jasai tappas comprised within the Jagir of
Nadaun in the district of Kangra. The last independent ruler of Kangra was Raja Sansar Chand who
died in the year 1824. Raja Sansar Chand was a
Katoch Rajput and had children from two women;
one of them, who was a Katoch lady, was his properly married wife and Raja Sansar Chand had a son
by her, named Raja Anirudh Chand. The other
woman was of the Gaddi tribe and by her Raja Sansar
Chand had a son, named Raja Jodhbir Chand. The
great antiquity of the Katoch royal line is undoubted,
and the history of the Kangra State from the earliest
times right up to its conquest by the Sikhs under
Maharaja Ranjit Singh has been traced in the Kangra
District Gazetteer (1924-25) at pp. 52 to 76.
We are
not concerned with that history prior to the time of
Raja Sansar Chand. The Gazetteer states (p. 75)
that Raja Sansar Chand was· for 20 years the "lord
paramount of the hills and even a formidable rival to
Ranjit Singh himself; but his aggressive nature led
him on in his bold designs and he fell at last a victim
to his own violence". With him the glory of the
Katocb line passed away and what remained to bis
son Anirudh Chand was little more than a name.
Anirudh Chand was summoned several times to the
Sikh camp and on the third occasion of his visit to
that camp, he was met by a very unacceptable demand. Raja Sansar Chand had left two daughters,
and Raja Dhian Singh of Jamun, one of the principal
officers of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, asked one of the
daughters to be given in marriage to his son. Hira
Singh. Anirudh Chand was a.fraid to refuse, though
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
895
in reality he regarded the alliance as an insult to his
family honour; because by immemorial custom a
Katoch Raja's daughter may not marry any one of
lower rank than her father, i.e., a Raja or an heirapparent. Anirudh Chand was a. Raja in his own
right and the descendant of a long line of kings,
while Dhian Singh was a Raja only by favour of his
master. Anirudh Chand prevaricated for some time;
but he was determined to sacrifice everything rather
than compromise the honour of his ancient line. He
secretly sent away his family and property across the
Sutlej and on hearing that Maharaja R<.tnjit Singh
had started from Lahore for Nadaun, he fled into
British territory. Maharaja Ranjit Singh came to
Nadaun, and Jodhbir Chand gave his two sisters to
the Maharaja. Jodhbir Chand was then created a
Raja, with Nadaun and the surrounding country as
his Jagir. Mian Fateh Chand, younger brother of
Raja Sansar Chand, offered his grand-daughter to
Raja Hira Singh. He was also rewarded with the gift
of a Jagir known as the Rajgiri Jagir and received
the rest of the State on lease on favourable terms.
His son, however, failed to pay the amount agreed
upon. The State was then annexed to the Sikh kingdom, and only the Rajgiri Jagir was reserved for the
royal family. Thus by 1827-28 Kangra had ceased to
be an independent principality and was to all intents
and purposes annexed to the Sikh kingdom, the "son
of Mian Fateh Chand· and Raja Jodhbir Chand occupying merely the positfon of Jagirdars under the Sikhs.
The present. appellant, Raja Rajinder Chand, is a
direct lineal descendant of Raja Jodhbir Chand, being fourth in the line of descent.
Then followed the Sikh wars and the establishment
of British rule in Kangra. The first Sikh war ended
in March, 1846, in the occuption of Lahore and the
cession to the British Government of the Jullunder
Doaba and the hills between the Sutlej and the Ravi.
In 1848, the second Sikh war began and Raja Parmudh Chand, one of the sons of Raja Anirudh Chand,
raised the standard of rebellion in Kangra. The
rebellion however failed. Meanwhile, Jodhbir Chand
1956
Raja Rajinder
Chand
v.
Sulzhi
S. [{,Das],
1956
Rafa Rajtndt.r
Chand
v.
Sukhi
S. K. DasJ.
896
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1956]
remained conspicuous for his fidelity to the British
Government; both in the Sikh war and in the Katoch
insurrection he did good service to the British. He
obtained a Sanad from the British Government in
1846. A copy of that Sanad was not available, but a
copy of a Sanad granted on October 11, 1848, which
renewed and clarified the earlier Sanad, was produced
and exhibited on behalf of the present appellant. We
shall have occasion to refer to this Sanad in detail at
a later stage."
Having thus indicated in brief the earlier history
with regard to the creation of Nadaun Jagir in favour
of Raja Jodhbir Chand, we now proceed to consider
the first two grounds of the claim of the appellant.
Tqe learne<:I Judges of the High Court.held, in agreement with the learned Subordinate Judge, that the
present appellant could not claim the sovereign rights
of Raja Sansar Chand who was an independent ruler
of Kangra. For this finding they gave two reasons;
firstly, Raja Jodhbir Chand was an illegitimate son
of Raja Sansar Chand and could not succeed to the
right.a of the Raja; secondly, whatever rights Raja
Sansar Chand had as an independent ruler of Kangra
came to an end (so far as his descendants were concerned) with the annexation of his territory by the
Sikhs, and Raja Jodhbir Chand merely got an assignmen.t of land revenue to the tune of Rs. 30,000 by the
grant of Nadaun Jagir by Maharaja Ranjit Singh.
We accept these as good and convincing reasons for
discountenancing the claim of the appellant that the
sovereign rights of the independent rulers of Kangra
in respect of all royal trees (including pine trees)
within Nadaun J-agir had come down to him. For
the purposes of these cases we may accept the position, in support of which there is some historical
material, that Raja Sansar Chand had a right to all
royal trees including pine trees within his territory;
but it is clear to us that neither Raja Jodhbir Chand
nor the present appellant succeeded to the rights of
the independent rt!lers of Kangra. Raja Jodhbir
Chand was a grantee under a grant first made by
Maharaja Ranjit Singh and then by the British Gov-
-
1
,_
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
897
ernment. The precise terms of the grant made by
Maharaja Ranjit Singh are not known.
The terms
of the grant made by the Governor-General on
October 11, 1848, are to be found in theSanad of that
date. Therefore, the position of the appellant cannot
be any higherin law than that of Raja Jodhbir Chand
and the claim of the appellant that he had succeeded
to the rights of the independent rulers of Kangra is
clearly unfounded. Dealing with this part of the
appellant's claim, the learned District Judge, who
found in favour of the appellant, relied on certain
observations quoted at p. 365, and again at p. 378,
of the Kangra District Gazetteer (1924-25), observations on which learned counsel for the appellant has
also relied. The observations are taken from Mr.
Lyall's Settlement Report. Mr. Lyall said:
"Under the Rajas (meaning the old Katoch
rulers) the theory of property in land was that each
Raja was the landlord of the whole of his raj or
principality, not merely in the degree in which everywhere in India the State is, in one sense, the landlord, but in a clearer and stronger degree .................... .
Each principality was .a single estate, divided for
management into a certain number of circuits.
-
The waste lands, great or small, were the Raja's
waste, the arable lands were made up of the separate
holdings of his tenants. The rent due from the holder
of each field was payable direct to the Raja, unless
--.
he remitted it as an act of favour to the holder, or
assigned it in Jagir to a third party in lieu of pay, or
as a subsistence allowance ................................................ .
Every several interest in land, whether the right
to cultivate certain fields, to graze exclusively certain
plots of waste, work a water-mill, set a net to catch
game or hawks on a mountain, or put a fish-weir in a
stream, was held direct of the Raja as a separate
holding or tenancy. The incumbent or tenant at the
117
7956
Raja RajindeY
Chand
v.
Sukhi
S. K. Dasj.
1956
Raja Rajinder
Chand
v.
Suk hi
S. K, Das}.
898
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
·[1956]
·most called his interest a 'warisi' or inheritance, not
a 'maliki' or lordship".
·
Mr. Lyall further observed that "all rights were sup- -
posed to come from the Raja; several rights, such as
holdings of land, etc., from his grant; others, such as
rights of common, from his sufferance".
At p. 377
of the Gazetteer a summary is given of the conditions
of land tenure under the rule of the Katoch Rajas.
It is stated that there were two rights in the soil recognised under the Raja's rule-the paramount right
of property which was vested in the Raja and the
right of cultivation derived .by grant from the Raja,
which was vested in the cultivators.
The first right
extended to the whole of the principality; the second
primarily extended only to the plot specified in the
grant, but carried with it further rights of common
in adjacent waste.
It is then observed that this
system of land tenure came down practically unchanged until the introduction of British rule, and
though the period of Sikh dominion intervened, the
Sikhs did not appear to have altered the system. The
learned District Judge relied on the aforesaid observations for his finding that the appellant had the
ownership of all royal trees in accordance with the
system of land tenure which prevailed during the
time of the old Rajas.
In our view, the learned
District Judge was in error with regard to this part
of the claim of the appellant.
Mr. Lyall began his
settlement work in 1865 and his report was dated
July 30, 1872. He continued and revised the earlier
settlement work of Mr. Barnes. It is worthy of note
that neither Mr. Barnes.nor Mr. Lyall undertook any
actual settlement operations in Nadaun, though Mr.
Lyall gathered very valuable historical data regarding the conditions of land tenure which prevailed in
the district of Kangra under the old Katoch Rajas.
It is one thing to say that the system of land tenure
prevailing under the old Katoch rulers continued in
spite of the Sikh interregnum, but it is quite a different thing to say that Raja Jodhbir Chand, the
grante.e of a J agir, succeeded to the rights of the independent Katoch rulers.
The rights of the last independent Katoch ruler, under the system of land
... ,
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
899
tenure which prevailed at the time, passed first to the
Sikhs who became the rulers of Kangra and then to
the British after the Sikh wars. The learnedDistrict
Judge failed to appreciate the distinction between
the sovereign rights of an independent ruler and the
rights of a grantee under a grant made by the sovereign ruler. It is pertinent to quote here the following
observations of Lord Dunedin in Vajesingji Joravarsingji v. Secretary of State for India(1):
"When a territory is acquired by a sovereign
State for the first time that is an act of State. It
matters not. how the acquisition has been brought
about. It may be by conquest, it may be by cession
following on treaty, it may be by occupation of territory hitherto unoccupied by a recognised ruler.
In
all cases the result is the same.
Any inhabitant of
the territory can make good in the. municipal courts
established by the new sovereign only such rights as
that sovereign has, through his officers, recognised.
Such rights as he had under the rule of predecessors
avail him nothing".
Mr. Douie in his Punjab Settlement Manual (1899)
said (p. 69):
"The Sikhs drove the hill Rajas of Kangra into
exile or degraded them into mere Jagirdars, and the
British Government when it took over the country
did not restore them to their old position".
The question as to whether the sovereign ruler having a right in all royal trees made a grant of that
right to Raja Jodhbir Chand or surrendered that right
in favour of Raja Jodhl;>ir Chand e>r any of his successors-in-interest is a different question which will
depend on the terms of the grant or on other evidence
showing that the right had been surrendered in favour
of the appellant or his predecessors-in-interest. That
is a question which we shall presently discuss'.
The
learned District Judge was however wrong in thinking
that, according to the system of land tenure which
prevailed under the old Rajas or under the Sikhs,
Raja J odh bir Chand got any right to all pine trees
within Nadaun Jagir.
(1) [1924J L.R. 51 I.A. 357, 360.
1956
Raja Rajinder
Chand
.
v.
Suk/ti
S. K. DasJ.
1956
Raja Rajinder
Chand
v.
Sukhi
S. K. DasJ,
900
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1956]
That brings us to the second ground and to a consideration of the terms of the Sanad dated October
11, 1848, on which also the appellant based his claim.
The Sanad was in these terms:
"Fresh Sanad re: Settlement upon Raja Jodhbir
Chand Katoch of the villages named hereinafter,
situate in Taalluqa Nadaun, possessed by him.
Whereas the mountainous country together with
the Doaba tract had come under the occupation of
the British Company in pursuance of the treaty which
took place between the British Government and the
Sirkar of Lahore on March 9, 1846: The Jagir of
Choru, Bara, etc., situate in the Ilaqa of Nadaun
the name of each Tappa whereof together with the
number of its villages and its Jama is given herein
below and the total Jama whereof was Rs. 26,270/10/3
per annum approximately, i.e., as much of the Ilaqa
of Nadaun as was in the possession of the said Raja
at the time of the commencement of tumult of battle
whether less or more than the present one, has been
granted in perpetuity, generation after generation, to
Raja Jodhbir Cha~d and his male legitimate descendants who are not from the womb of a slave girl under
the orders of the Most Generous Gracious, Exalted
and Excellent Nawab Sir Henry Hardinge G.C.B.
Governor-General, ruler of the territory of India,
communicated in writing in English bearing the signature of Mr. Edward, Deputy Chief Secretary to
His Excellency, in reply to the Commissioner's report
No. 147, dated July 24, 1847, and also as contemplated
in the previous order of the Niiwab Governor-General,
dated August 7, 1846, subject to the following conditions:-
1. In no way shall criminal jurisdiction in respect of the said Ilaqa vest in the Raja Sahib. The
entire administration and power of hearing every sort
of complaint between the Riaya (subjects) and the
said Raja shall remain in the hands of the British
Government's officers.
2. The Raja Sahib shall not be at liberty to
receive on any pretext Mahsul for any commodity
from any Mahajan and trader or from the Riaya
n
I
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
901
(subjects) by way of Zakat (octroi), or anything on
account of excise and intoxicants. He shall receive
only revenue from the Riaya living in the villages of
his Jagir according to the British Government's rules
of practice. In case of contravention of the said rules
of practice cash shall be fixed by the Government for
the said Raja Sahib or his descendants.
3.
After the death of the said Raja Sahib this
Jagir shall be divided among his real sons according
to the practice followed by Hindus. It shall not
devolve on his descendants from a slave girl.
4. It shall be essential for the Raja Sahib to
construct at his own expense public roads, eleven
cubits in width, in his Ilaqa.
5. It is proper for the Raja Sahib to be always
ready to serve the Government wholeheartedly and
to bear good moral character.
Hence it is obligatory on the said Raja Sahib not
to set his foot on the borders of others beyond his
own. He should treat this Sanad as a Sanad absolute.
Previously on, September 22, 1846, a Sanad was
issued by the Exalted Henry Montgomery Colonel
Lawrence from Simla without thorough enquiry and
without the name of each village being entered therein. In that Sanad the entire Jama is shown to be
Rs. 32,000 approximately. According to the statements
of officials of the Raja Sahib the said Jama includes
amounts on account of excise, Bhum Chari (cattle
grazing) etc. That was found to be wrong. Now the
present Sanad with the name of each Tappa and the
number of villages and Jama thereof being entered
in it is issued by this Court subject to the abovementioned conditions after an enquiry having been made
and a report having been submitted to the Nawab
Governor-General".
Appended to the Sanad was a list of tappas and
villages comprised within the Jagir of Nadaun. The
list also mentioned in the third column the amount
of Jama for each tappa.
The question now is whether the aforesaid Sanad
was a grant primarily of land revenue; or it made a
grant of other royal rights including the right to all
1956
Roja Rojinder
Chand
v.
S11khi
S. K. DasJ,
1956
Raja Rajinder
Chand
v.
Siikhi
S. K. DasJ.
902
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1956]
pine trees which is the particular right under consideration in the six suits brought by the appellant.
It is, we think, well settled that the ordinary rule
applicable to grants made by a subject does not apply
to grants made by the sovereign authority; and grants
made by the Sovereign are to be construed most
favourably for the Sovereign. This general rule, however, is capable of important relaxations in favour of
the subject. It is necessary to refer here to such only
of those relaxations as have a bearing on the construction of the document before us; thus, if the intention 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, may take
effect notwithstanding qualifications 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
Sovereign ought to be more regarded than the
Sovereign's profit (see para 670 at p. 315 of Halsbury's
Laws of England, Vol. VII, s. 12, Simonds Ed.).
It is worthy of note that so far as the lands in
possession of tenants or subjects were concerned, the
Sanad did not grant any right other than the right
to receive revenue; condition No. 2 of the Sanad made
it quite clear that the grantee would receive only revenue from the subjects living in the villages of his
Jagir according to the British Government's rules of
practice, and that the grantee -was not at liberty to
receive on any prete,;ict "mahsul" for any commodity
from any Mahajan or trader or any octroi, etc. from
any of the subjects. If the intention was to grant
the right to pine tree standing on the lands of the
subjects, one would expect. it to be mentioned in condition No. 2. The mention of the Jama in the Sanad
is also significant. In the earlier· Sanad the entire
Jama was shown to be Rs. 32,000, because according
to the statements of the officials of the Raja Sahib,
the said Jama included amounts received on account
of cattle grazing, etc.; that was found to be wrong, and
•
•
,
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPOR1'S
903
the correct Jama was found to be Rs. 26,270-10-3.
The Sanad concluded with these words:
"Now the present. Sanad with the name of each
tappa and the number of villages and Jama thereof
being entered in it is issued subject to the abovementioned conditions, etc."
In the recital portion of the Sanad a.lso it was stated
that the J agir of certain tappas, together with the
number of villages comprised within the tappas and
the Jama mentioned in the list, the total Jama being
Rs. 26,270-10-3, was granted to Raja Jodhbir Chand.
The other conditions subject to which the grant was
made showed that no sovereign rights were granted
to the Jagirdar. In para 69 at p. 96 of his report Mr.
Lyall gave a list of the principal J"agirs of Kangra
and stated that Raja Jodhbir Chand had a Jama or
revenue demand of Rs. 36,079 in perpetuity; he said-
"Out of the total jama, Rs. 6,079 are the assessment
of assigned Khalsa lands which the Raja pays to
Government as nazarana; Rs. 33,000 is the value of
the grant, but the Raja puts his collection at Rs. 30,000
only, exclusive of Khalsa tikas". The aforesaid remarks, made not very long after the grant, also
support the view that the grant was primarily an
assignment of land revenue and whatever other rights
might have been included, the right to all pine trees
on cultivated lands of the subjects was not within
the grant.
We agree therefore with the High Court
that on a true and proper construction of the Sanad,
it is impossible to spell out of its terms a grant in
favour of Raja Jodhbir Chand of the right to all pine
trees on cultivated and proprietary lands.
We proceed now to examine the third ground of
the claim of the appellant, viz., that part of his
claim which is based on the entries in the Wajib-ularz of 1892-93 (Ex. P-5), 1899-1900 (Ex. P-6) and
1910-1915 (Ex. P-4) and other connected documents.
This part of the claim of the appellant has been the
most controversial and difficult to determine. The
learned Subordinate Judge expressed the view that
the aforesaid entries did not help the appellant,
because they related to pine trees standing either on
1956
Raja Rajindcr
Chand
v.
Sukhi
S. K. Das].
1956
Raja Rajinder
Chand
...
Sukhl
S. K. Das].
904
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1956]
uncultivated waste lands or nautor (recently reclaimed) lands and not to such trees on proprietary
and cultivated lands. The learned District Judge
held on appeal that in the Wajib-ul•arz of 1892-93
(Ex. P-5) all pine (chil) trees were held to be the property of Government; this led to a dispute between
the Raja and Government, and in the Wajib-ul-arz of
1899-1900 (Ex. P-6) and subsequent documents, an
entry was made in favour of the Raja showing that
Government had relinquished or surrendered their
right to the Raja. He did not agree with the learned
Subordinate Judge that the entries related to pine
trees standing on waste or reclaimed lands only. The
learned Judge who delivered the leading judgment of
the High Court gave and considered a long string of
quotations from many documents and then came to
the conclusion that the authority of the Wajib-ul-arz
entries was open to doubt and the Raja had failed to
make out his claim; the learned Judge did not clearly
find however if the entries related to waste and reclaimed lands only.
Learned counsel for the appellant has very strongly
submitted b1Jfore us that the view of the learned
District J iidge was correct and should have been accepted by the High Court; learned counsel for the
respondents has argued, on the contrary, that the
trial Judge and the learned Judges of the High Court
came to a definite finding, which he has characterised
as a finding of fact, with regard to the Wajih-ul-arz
entries and this Court should not go behind that finding. We do not think that these appeals can be disposed of on the short ground that this Court does not
normally go behind a concurrent finding of fact.
Indeed, in respect of the Wajib-ul-arz entries, there
is no concurrent finding in these cases; the trial Judge
thought that the entries related to waste and recently
reclaimed lands, whereas the High Court doubted
the very authority of the entries. Moreover, the question whether from the Wajib-ul-arz entries an inference of surrender or relinquishment of a sovereign
right by Government can be properly dtawn is not
a pure question of fact, depending as it does on the
•
S.C.R.
SUPREM~ COURT R~PORTS
905
true scope and legal effect of those entries. We cannot, by resorting to a short cut as it were, relieve
ourselves of the task of examining the Wajib-ul-arz
entries and considerding their true scope and legal
effect.
We have already referred to Mr. Barnes' Settlement
(1850-52) and pointed out that he did not undertake
any actual settlement operations in Nadaun. The next
person who dealt wi-th the settlement of Kangra was
Mr. Lyall, afterwards Sir James Lyall, Lt. Governor
of the Punjab. He began his work in 1865 and wrote
his report in 1872.
He also did not undertake any
settlement of Nadaun. Alex. Anderson was the next
person who dealt with the settlement of Kangra. By
Notification No. 25 dated January 26, 1888 a general
re-assessment of the land revenue of Kangra district
was ordered and· by Notification No. 26 of the same
date a preparation of the record-of-rights in the
Jagirs of Guler, Siba and Nadaun was undertaken.
Mr. O'Brien undertook the settlement, but died on
November 28, 1893 and it was left to Mr. Anderson
to write the report. It may be stated here that Mr.
Anderson wrote two reports: one was the Forest Settlement Report of 1887 and the other was the Revised
Settlement Report of Kangra of 1897. On April 27,
1910 two other notifications were published, directing
a revision of the existing record-of-rights in Dera
and Hamirpur Tehsils (Nadaun being within Hamirpur Tehsil).
As a result, Messrs Middleton and
Shuttleworth undertook a revisional settlement,
which was the Settlement of 1910-15.
We have in
these cases to deal with the entries made in O'Brien's
Settlement (1892-93), Anderson's Settlement (18991900), and the Settlement of Messrs Middleton and
Shuttleworth (1910-15).
Before dealing with the actual entries made, it is
necessary to refer to a few more matters arising out
of the settlement operations of l\fossrs Barnes and
Lyall. The expressions 'ala-malik' and 'adna-malik'
have been used often in the course of this litigation.
What do those expressions mean? In Mr. Douie's
Punjab Settlement Manual (1930 edition) it is stated
118
1956
Raja Raji11der
Chand
v.
Suk hi
S. /{, DasJ,
7956
Raja Rajinder
Chand
v.
Sukhl
s. K. Das/.
906
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1956)
in para 143: "Where the proprietary right is divided
the superior owner is known in settlement literature
as ala malik or talukdar, and the inferior owner as
adna-malik. . ..................................................................... ..
.................... In cases of divided ownership the ·proprietary profits are shared between the two classes
who have an interest in the soil". How this distinction arose, so far as the record-of-rights in the
Jagirs are concerned, appears from para 105 at p. 60
of Mr. Anderson's report. Mr. Anderson said:
"The first great question for decision was the
status of the Raja and of the people with respect to
the land, which was actually in the occupancy of the
people, and next with respect to the land not in their
actual occupancy, but over which they were accustomed to graze and to do certain other acts. Mr.
O'Brien decided that the Raja was superior proprietor
or Talukdar of all lands in his J agir, and the occupants were constituted inferior proprietors of their
own holdings and of the waste land comprised within
their holdings as will be shown hereafter; he never
fully considered the rights in waste outside holdings.
The general grounds for the decision may be gathered
from Mr. Lyall's Settlement Report and from the
orders on the Siba Summary Settlement Report, but
I quote at length the principles on which Mr. O'Brien
determined the status of occupants of land, not merely
because it is necessary to explain here the action that
he took, but also in order that the Civil Courts which
have to decide questions as to proprietary rights
may know on what grounds the present record was
based".
Mr. Anderson then quoted the following extract from
Mr.