DEC 24 1918

INDEX

ΤΟ

PRIVY

COUNCIL JUDGMENT,

1875.

Act of State.-Resumption of rent-free lands by the British Government-Jurisdiction :-Plaintiff claimed possession of a rakh which had been granted by the Maharajah Runjeet Sing to plaintiff's father. The rakh was held rent-free for the purpose, chiefly, of supplying fodder to a contingent of cavalry which the owner was bound to supply for the service of the Government. Plaintiff alleged that the rakh upou the death of his father devolved by inheritance upon his brother, who was killed at the battle of Feroze pore in arms against the British troops; that upon his brother's death, his uncle, Rajah Teja Sing, took possession of the rakh as his (plaintiff's) guardian, and that a grant of it was made by the British Government, after the conquest of the territory, to Teja Sing for his life. Teja Sing died in 1863, whereupon the property was resumed by the Government. Plaintiff sued for possession of the rakh as heir of his deceased brother.

In March 1849, a proclamation was issued by the British Government, that "jaghirs and all the property of Sirdars or others who had been in arms against the British should be confiscated to the State"; and two days later (31st March, 1849) a Board of Administration was constituted, with special directions with respect to rentfree lands. Those directions stated that " by our eccupation of the country, after the whole Sikh nation had been in arms against us, we have acquired the absolute right of conquerors, and would be justified in declaring every acre of land liable to Government assessment. There is no reason why we should maintain in perpetuity an alienation of the Government revenues which would not have been maintained by the power we have succeeded. All grants were resumed by the Sikh rulers at will, without reference to the terms of the grant. On the death of the grantor, they lapsed as a matter of course. Every holder of rent-free land, who is confirmed in his tenure by the Government, must yield up every document in his possession which entitled him to the exemption from revenue, and a grant must be given to him under the Board's seal, &c., declaring that the grant is a free gift of the British Government."

Held (affirming the judgment of the Chief Court) that the Governor General made, as an act of State, a tabula rasa of these rent-free tenures, and that the grant to Teja Sing was made in pursuance of the right of conquest referred to in the proclamation, and was an act of State, not questionable by any Municipal Court. Plaintiff's suit dismissed.

INDEX TO NAME.

Sirdar Bhagwan Sing v. Secretary of State for India in Council.

T

INDEX

ΤΟ

CIVIL JUDGMENTS,

1875.

The references are to the Nos. given to the cases in the "Record."

A.

Absentee―Abandonment-Limitation :-N., plaintiff's father, in 1856, left his vil-
lage, where he owned land and was cultivating with his uncle, H. S.,
and settled in a neighbouring village where he adhered to H. S.'s
enemies. In 1859, N. died in the village to which he had removed.
In 1874, plaintiff, who was then about 20 years old sued defendant,
son of H. S. (deceased), for N.'s share, of which he, N., had been re-
corded proprietor at the settlement in 1856 shortly after he left his
village.

Held that plaintiff's claim was not barred by limitation, and
that he was entitled to recover his father's share,
Acknowledgment-Abandonment :-D., the father of plaintiff, died in
1843, in possession of his land. The plaintiff was then an infant: he
came of age in 1861. In 1846, an entry was made at Settlement that
D.'s brothers who had absconded, taking plaintiff with them, were
D.'s heirs and that his share was held by the proprietors of the
pána who would restore the land to the absconders on their return
upon payment of what was due. The brothers died, one in 1847,
and the other in 1852. In 1853, plaintiff and his mother returned
to the village, when plaintiff and H., a son of one of the brothers,
were entered as sharers in the abádi. H. died, and plaintiff and his
mother again left the village. In 1863, the proprietors of the pána
had the names of the deceased brother of D. erased from the settle-
ment record, and themselves substituted as proprietors of D.'s share.
In 1873, plaintiff claimed his father's share.

Held that plaintiff had not abandoned D.'s share, and having
sued within 12 years of the proprietors asserting adverse possession,
he was entitled to recover,

...

Admission by locum tenens does not enure to benefit of son of absen-
tee :-In 1855, defendant admitted the proprietary right of P. and
S., absentees. At the second settlement in 1863, the absentees had
not returned, and defendant, the locum tenens, did not repeat his
admission or make any engagement to restore the land to the absent
owners. In 1875, P.'s son sued defendant for his father's share, P.
and S. having died more than 12 years before suit.

Held, that plaintiff's claim was barred by time.

No.

37

46