http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 17  

PETITIONER: RAJA RAJINDER CHAND

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SUKHI(and connected appeals)

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/10/1956

BENCH: JAGANNADHADAS, B. BENCH: JAGANNADHADAS, B. AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA DAS, S.K.

CITATION:  1957 AIR  286            1956 SCR  889

ACT: Right to Royal trees-Conquest of territory-Grant of Jagir by conqueror-Title   to  trees  within  Jagir-Rights   of   the Jagirdar-Grant-Construction-Entries  in   Wajib-ul-arz-Scope and  legal  7 effect-Ala malik and Adna malik,  Meaning  of- Punjab Land-Revenue Act, 1887 (Punjab XVII of 1887), ss. 31, 44.

HEADNOTE: The  appellant  as the proprietor of Nada-un Jagir  sued  to establish  his title to chil (pine) trees standing on  lands within  the Jagir but belonging to the respondents,  on  the ground that the trees belonged to him as ala malik (superior landlords  and  not to the respondents who  were  only  adna maliks  (inferior landlords).  The Jagir  originally  formed part of the territory belonging to the rulers of Kangra  who were  Sovereigns  entitled to the chil trees.  In  1827.  28 Maharaja  Ranjit Singh conquered the territory  and  granted Nadaun   as  Jagir  to  Raja  Jodhbir  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  territory came under the dominion of the British,.  who granted  a  Sanad  in  favour  of  Raja  Jodhbir  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 (Anderson’s Settlement) and 1910-1915 (Settlement of  Messrs Middleton and Shuttleworth), and there were some entries  in the  Wajib-ul-arz  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  Kangra  rulers, secondly,  on  the basis of the grant given by  the  British Government  and, thirdly,on the strength of the  entries  in the Wajib-ul-arz. Held:(1)  The  Sovereign  right of  the  independent  Kangra rulers  Lo chil trees passed by conquest to the Sikh  rulers and subsequently to the British; Raja Jodhbir Chand was only a  Jagirdar  under  the  Sikhs  and  the  British,  and  the appellant could not therefore lay claim to the chil trees on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 17  

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 all chil trees on the proprietary and cultivated lands of the respondents was  not within the grant. 890 It is well settled that the general rule is that grants made by the Sovereign are to be construed most favourably for the Sovereign;  but  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,  must 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. (3)Wajib-ul-arz or village 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 of 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. The  expressions "ala malik" and "adna malik"  explained  in the  context  of the Settlement reports relating  to  Nadaun Jagir. Venkata Narasimha Appa Bow Bahadur v. Rajah Narayya Appa Bow Bahadur ([1879] L.R. 7 I.A. 38), Dakas Khan v. Ghulam  Kasim Khan  (A.I.R.  1918  P.C. 4) and  Gurbakhsh  Singh  v.  Mst. Partapo ([1921] I.L.R. 2 Lah. 346), referred to.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 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 an& 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, 4th Class, Kangra  in  Suits Nos. 544, 548, 545, 547, 546  and  549  of 1940. Bang Beharilal and K. R. Chaudhury, for the appellant. 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.  The Judgment of the Court was  delivered by S.   K.  DAS J.-These are six appeals by the plaintiff  Raja

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 17  

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  claimed 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 had 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 barred 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, how- 892 ever,  of  his findings on the questions  of  ownership  and limitation,  lie 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 the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge on the question  of  limitation,  but accepted his  finding  as  to damages.  Accordingly, he allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment  and decrees of the learned Subordinate Judge,  and gave  the appellant the declaration and order of  injunction he  had asked 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  had been  able to establish his 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 his  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 110 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 17  

appeals  is whether the present appellant has been  able  to establish his 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- 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  various  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 British  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 894 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 bad 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 17  

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 be fell at last a victim  to his  own violence".  With him the glory of the  Katoch  line passed  away and what remained to his 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, be was met by a very unacceptable  dein and   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 afraid to refuse, though 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 Ranjit 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 granddaughter 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 position of Jagirdars tinder 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  occupation  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 896 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 17  

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.  The learned  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 rights  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 assignment 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 Jagir 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  rulers of  Kangra.  Raja Jodhbir Chand was a grantee under a  grant first made by Maharaja Ranjit Singh and then by the  British Gov- 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 the  Sanad  of that date.  Therefore,, the position  of  the appellant  cannot  be any higher in law than  that  of  Raja Jodhbir  Chand  and the claim of the appellant that  he  bad 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 17  

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 117 898 most  called  his interest a ’warisi ’  or  inheritance  not ’maliki’ or lordship". Mr. Lyall further observed that "all rights were supposed 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 interregnums, but it is quite a  different  thing  to say that  Raja  Jodhbir  Chand,  the grantee  of  a  Jagir, succeeded to the rights  of  the  in- dependent Katoch rulers.  The rights of the last independent Katoch ruler, under the system of land 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 learned  District  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".

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 17  

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 Jodhbir  Chand  or 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 Jodhbir Chand got any right to all pine trees within  Nadaun Jagir. (1)  [1924] L.R. 51.  I.A. 357, 360. 900 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  Chand  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 Nawab 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 I Mahajan  and trader or from the Riaya 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 17  

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 above mentioned 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 902 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 con- struction 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  pretext  "mahsul"  for  any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 17  

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 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 above mentioned. conditions, etc." In the recital portion of the Sanad also it was stated  that the  Jagir  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 MrLyall gave a list of the principal Jagirs 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-ul-arz 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 904 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 17  

failed  to  make out his claim; the learned  Judge  did  not clearly find however if the entries related to waste and re- claimed lands only. Learned   counsel  for  the  appellant  has  very   strongly submitted  before its that the view of the learned  District Judge 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 Wajib-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-arze 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 drawn is not a pure question of fact, depending as it does on the 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 considering 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 with 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  Messrs 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 118 906 in  para  143: "Where the proprietary right is  divided  the superior  owner  is known in settlement  literature  as  ala

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 17  

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 Jagir,  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;  be  never   fully considered  the  rights  in  waste  outside  holdings.   The general  grounds fir 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. O’Brien’s assessment report to explain the position: "In places where the possession of the original occupants of land   was  undisturbed,  they  were  classed  as   inferior proprietors;  but  where  they  had  acquired  their   first possession  on land already cultivated at a recent date,  or where  the  cultivators  had admitted the  Raja’s  title  to proprietorship during the preparation and attestation of the Jamabandis, they were 907 recorded  as tenants with or without right of  occupancy  as the circumstances of the case suggested...................  .......................................................... In  deciding  the  question old  possession  was  respected. Where  the ryots had been proved to be in  undisturbed  pos- session  of  the soil they have been  recorded  as  inferior proprietors". The same principles were followed in Nadaun: long possession with or without a patta or lease from the Raja was the  test for  recording  the ryot as an  inferior  proprietor  (adna- malik). Bearing in mind the aforesaid distinction between  ala-malik and adna-malik, we proceed now to examine the actual entries made in the Wajib-ul-arz of 1892-93 (Ex.  P-5), of 1899-1900 (Ex.   P-6)  and  of 1910-15 (Ex.  P-4).  In  Ex.   P-5  the relevant entry in para 11 was: "The  owners  shall, however, have no right to  pine  trees. They  can  neither  cut  them  nor  get  the  same   without permission,  for  it  has  been  laid  down  in  the  Forest Settlement  Reports  that  the Raja  Sahib  gave  leases  to reclaim  such  lands whereon the Government  jungles,  i.e., the’  Government  pine trees exist.  For  this  reason,  the Government  maintained their right to the pine  trees. (see para. 78 of the English report regarding jungles,.)". In Ex.  P-6 the relevant entry was- "Except the chil (pine) trees all the trees situated in  the Khata  of  any  person in the Tikas of  the  Jagir  are  the property of the owner of the Khata.  The chil trees  growing

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 17  

in such Khatas in the Tikas of the Jagir are the property of Raja Sahib". In Ex.  P-4 the entry was- "Excepting  the  pine trees all the trees  standing  in  the Khata  of  any person in the Tikas of the Jagir  save  those proprietary lands the trees whereof have been held belonging to  the  Government during the recent Settlement  and  which have  been mentioned above are the property of the owner  of the  Khata.  In the Tika’s of Jagir. all the- pine trees  of such  Khatas  excepting those standing on  such  proprietary lands, and which have been held to be the property 908 of  the Government during the recent settlement and  mention whereof has been made above are the property of Raja Sahib." The  question-before us is as’ to the true scope  and  legal effect  of these entries.  Do they establish a grant of  the right to chil trees or, what is the same thing, a  surrender of  that  right, in favour of the Raja  by  Government?   In these cases we are not concerned with trees on public  waste lands,  nor  with forest trees; and as the  High  Court  has pointed  out,  we  do not know if the  lands  in  suit  were initially  private waste or recently reclaimed  lands.   The Jamabandis  show  that they are proprietary  and  cultivated lands of adna maliks.  Therefore, the question before us  is the right to chil trees on proprietary and cultivated  lands in possession of adna maliks. It  is  not disputed that under s. 31 of  the  Punjab  Land- Revenue Act, 1887, Wajib-ul-arz is a part of the  record-of- rights, and entries made therein in accordance with law  and the  provisions  of  Ch.   IV  of  the  Act  and  the  rules thereunder, shall be presumed to be true (vide s. 44).   The Wajib-ul-arz or village administration paper is a record  of existing  customs  regarding rights and liabilities  in  the estate; it is not to be used for the creation of new  rights or  liabilities.  (see  para 295 of  the  Punjab  Settlement Manual,  pp.  146-147,1930  ed.). In appendix  VIII  of  the Settlement  Manual,  Section E, are  contained  instructions with  regard  to  the Wajib-ul-arz  and  instruction  No.  2 states: "The statement shall not contain entries relating to matters regulated  by  law, nor shall customs contrary  to  justice, equity or good conscience, or which have been declared to be void by any competent authority, be entered in it.   Subject to   these  restrictions,  the  statement   should   contain information  on  so  many of the following  matters  as  are pertinent to the estate:    ....................................................... (h)The  rights of cultivators of all classes  not  expressly provided for by law (for instance, rights to 909 trees  or  manure, and the right to plant trees)  and  their customary liabilities other than rent.   ............................................  (j)The  rights  of  Government  to  any  nazul   property,, forests,  unclaimed, unoccupied, deserted, or  waste  lands, quarries,   ruins  or  objects  of   antiquarian   interest, spontaneous  products, and other accessory interest in  land included within the boundaries of the estate.  ........................................................ (1)  Any  other  important  usage affecting  the  rights  of landowners,  cultivators or other persons interested in  the estate,  not  being  a  usage  relating  to  succession  and transfer of landed property". In the cases before us, the appellant did not base his claim on  custom,  though referring to his right be  said  in  his

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 17  

plaint-"this  has  been the practice throughout".   What  he really  meant by "practice" was the land  system  prevailing under  the old independent Katoch rulers.  We  have  already held  that the appellant did not get the sovereign right  of the  independent  Katoch rulers; nor did the grant  made  in 1848  give him any right to the royal trees.  The  entry  in the Wajib-ul-arz of 1892-93 (Ex.  P-5) is not really in  his favour;  it  states  that  trees  of  every  kind  shall  be considered  to be the property of the owners  (adna-maliks), but  the owners shall have no right to pine trees; for  this last  part of the entry which is somewhat contradictory  of- the  earlier  part,  a  reference is  made  to  para  78  of Anderson’s  Forest  Settlement Report as authority  for  it. That  paragraph, however, stated in clear  terms-"No  orders have  been passed by main regard to trees on fields, as  the present  enquiry  extended only to the waste land".   It  is obvious  that the entry in the Wajib-ul-arz of 1892-93  went much  beyond  what was stated in para 78 of  Mr.  Anderson’s report, and so far as the right to pine trees on proprietary and  cultivated  lands was concerned, the statement  made  a confusion  between  Government jungles,  recently  reclaimed land and proprietary land, On its own showing, the entry was 910 not the statement of an existing custom, because it referred to para 78 of the Forest Settlement Report; far less did  it show any surrender or relinquishment of a sovereign right by Government  in favour of the Raja.  Indeed, it is  difficult to understand how the surrender or relinquishment of such -a right  can  be  the subject of a village custom  or  can  be within  the  scope  of an entry in  the  Wajib-ul-arz.   The original grant in favour of Raja Jodhbir Chand was by  means of  a  Sanad, and one would expect any additional  grant  or surrender  to  be embodied in a similar  document.   At  any rate,  if  the intention of Government was  to  surrender  a sovereign right in favour of the Raja, one would expect such intention  to  be  expressed in  unambiguous  language.   In Khalsa  villages,  Government did surrender their  right  to trees  on Shamilat lands of adna-maliks on the authority  of letter  No.  347  of  January  6,  1867.   Taking  the  most favourable view for the appellant, the entries in the Wajib- ul-arz  in these cases can be said to express the  views  of certain revenue authorities as to the rights of the Raja  or the  intention of Government; but the views of  the  revenue authorities  as to the effect or construction of a grant  or the  intention of Government in respect of a grant,  do  not conclude  the  matter or bind the civil Courts.  (See  Rajah Venkata Narasimha Appa Row Bahadur v. Rajah Narayya Appa Row Bahadur(1)). The  same  comments apply to the Wajib-ul-arz  of  1899-1900 (Ex.   P-6)  and of 1910-15 (Ex.  P-4).  They no  doubt  say that the pine trees on the lands comprised within the Khatas of adna-maliks are the property of the Raja Sahib.  None  of them  indicate,  however, on what basis the  right  to  chil trees on proprietary and cultivated lands of the adna-maliks is  to  be  held the property of the  Raja  Sahib.   If  the revenue  authorities  made the entries on the basis  of  the land system of the old Katoch rulers or on the basis of  the Sanad of 1848, they were clearly wrong. -If, however,  there was a surrender by Government of the right in favour of  the Raja,  one would expect it to be mentioned unambiguously  in the entries; one (1)  [1879] L.R. 7 I.A. 38, 48. 911 would  further  expect  the  same to  be  mentioned  in  the Jamabandis  (Exs.   D-7 and D-8) of  the  adna-maliks.   The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 17  

Jamabandis  do  not, however, show any  restriction  on  the rights  of  adna-maliks with regard to the  trees  on  their lands.   A  reference may be made here to  another  document (Ex.  D-2) which is an extract of the Wajib-ul-arz (para 12) of ’1892-93, dealing with the rights of ala-maliks and adna- maliks.   The entry shows that the Raja Sahib was to get  15 per  cent. on the net revenue in respect of the entire  land owned  by the adna-maliks as talukdari dues which  had  been fixed: the talukdari dues were fixed to compensate the  Raja Sahib  for  all sorts of dues, such as  banwaziri,  domiana, etc.   It  is  improbable that after the  fixation  of  such talukdari  dues,  a grant of a further right in  respect  of chil  trees  on the lands of adna-maliks  will  be  made but will not be specifically mentioned in para 12 of the  Wajib- ul-arz, which dealt particularly with the rights of ala  and adna  maliks.   Learned counsel for the appellant  drew  our attention  to  Ex.   D-6,  an extract  of  para  11  of  the Wajib-ul-arz, of 1914-15, at the bottom of which there is  a note that the Zamindars (adna-maliks) were present and every paragraph  had  been  read out to them  and  the  same  were correct.  The argument before us is that the adna-maliks ad- mitted the Wajib-ul-arz of 1914-15 to be correct.  We cannot accept  that  argument; firstly, we do not  think  that  the endorsement  at  the bottom of Ex.  D-6 is an  admission  by adna-maliks of the correctness of the entries made in  other paragraphs of the Wajib-ul-arz, as for example, para 10 (Ex. P-4) which related to the rights of Government in respect of the  nazul  lands, etc.  Secondly, even if  the  endorsement amounts to such an admission as is contended for by  learned counsel  for  the  appellant, we do not  think  that  it  is conclusive  or decisive of the right which the appellant  is claiming.   Ex.  P-2 dated May 27,1886, showed that even  so far  back  as  at that date, sonic  of  the  adnamaliks  had complained  that the Raja’s men had cut and taken away  some chil  trees  on their lands.  It is  quite  improbable  that after such a complaint the adna-maliks would admit the right of the ala-malik 912 to  chil trees on their lands.  In para. 296 of  the  Punjab Settlement Manual, Mr. Douie observed that the  Wajib-ul-arz in the first regular settlements was sometimes a  formidable document,  but its real value as evidence of village  custom was  not always proportionate to its length.  He  ’A  quoted with  approval the observations of Sir Arthur  Brandreth  to the   following   effect:  "Some  -few  points   have   been ascertained  in each case, but in general the villagers  did not  know their customs very well, and when they  put  their seals  to  the paper, no doubt they thought it  very  grand, though  they did not know what it was about, as  they  could little understand the language.  The rules are of two sorts; one,  the rules laid down by Government, or points on  which the  whole pargana have the same custom, and, secondly,  the special customs of the particular manor; these together take up  a great number of pages, and the villagers are  confused by the long code of rules, and merely say ’yes, yes’ and put their  seals  to.  the  paper, hoping  it  is  nothing  very dreadful." A  large  number  of  decisions  in  which  entries  of  the Wajib-ul-arz or the Riwaji-i-am and the value to be given to them were considered, have been cited before us. In some  of them,  entries in the Wajib-ul-arz were accepted as  correct and in others they were not so accepted, notwithstanding the statutory  presumption attaching to the entries under s.  44 of the Punjab Land-Revenue Act, 1887.  We do not think  that any  useful  purpose  will  be  served  by  examining  those

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 17  

decisions  in detail.  The legal position is  clear  enough. As was observed by the Privy Council in Dakas Khan v. Ghulam Kasim Khan(1), the Wajib-ul-arz, though it does not create a title,  gives  rise to a presumption in  its  support  which prevails unless the presumption is property displaced It  is also  true  that the Wajib ul-arz being part  of  a  revenue record  is of greater authority than a Riwaji-i-am which  is of general application and which is not drawn up in  respect of individual villages (Gurbakhsh Singh v. Mst. Partapo(1)). Whether the statutory presumption (1) A.I.R. 1918 P.C. 4. (2) [1921] I L.R. 2 Lah. 346. 913 attaching to an entry in the Wajib-ul-arz has been  properly displaced or not must depend on the facts of each case.   In the cases under our consideration, we hold, for the  reasons already  given by us, that the entries in  the  Wajib-ul-arz with  regard  to the right of the Raja in  respect  of  chil trees  standing on cultivated and proprietary lands  of  the adna-maliks,  do not and cannot show any existing custom  of the village, the right being a sovereign right; nor do  they show  in  unambiguous  terms that the  sovereign  right  was surrendered  or relinquished in favour of the Raja.  In  our view,   it  would  be  an  unwarranted  stretching  of   the presumption  to  hold that-the entries in  the  Wajib-ul-arz make out a grant of a sovereign right in favour of the Raja; to  do so would be to hold that the Wajib-ul-arz  creates  a title in favour of the Raja which it obviously cannot. It  is necessary to state here that in the  Wajib-ul-arz  of 1899-1900 (Ex.  P-6) there was a reference to certain orders contained in letter No. 1353 dated March 11, 1897, from  the Senior Secretary of the Financial Commissioner.  This Wajib- ul-arz also showed that certain amendments were made on  May -26,  1914,  by  an  order of  Mr.  Shuttleworth,  the  then Settlement  Officer.   There  is a  further  note  that  the amendment  was  cancelled on January 23, 1917. In  the  High Court  judgment there is a reference to the notes  mentioned above  and the learned Judge who gave the  leading  judgment observed  that the aforesaid notes showed that the state  of affairs  prevailing at that time was some what confused  and fluid.   It  is  probable  that  each  revenue  officer  was expressing his own opinion about the matter.  An attempt was made  in  the  High Court to get  some  of  the  unpublished original  documents of Government to clarify the entries  in the  Wajib-ul-arz.  The Government of the  Punjab,  however, claimed privilege in respect of those documents, which claim was  upheld  in the High Court.  We  have  re-examined  that claim,  and  though  the  State was  not  a  party  to  this litigation,  we heard the learned Advocate-General  for  the State.. 914 We found the claim to be valid under the law as it stands at present. We  have  assumed that the entries in  the  Wajib-ul-arz  of 1899-1900   and  of  1910-15  related  to   cultivated   and proprietary  lands of adna-maliks, though they were  entered in a paragraph which dealt with the rights of Government  in respect of ownership of the nazul lands, jungles,  unclaimed property, etc.  Even on that assumption, we have come to the conclusion  that  the  entries in the  Wajib-ul-arz  do  not establish  the  claim  of the appellant  that  there  was  a surrender  or relinquishment of a sovereign right in  favour of his predecessor. It remains now to notice’ some other evidence on the record. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred us to several

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 17  

judgments,  Exs.  P-9, P-7, P-8 and P-4 (wrongly- marked  as Ex.  P-6).  Referring to these judgments, the learned  trial Judge  said  that it was not clear whether  those  judgments related  to  lands  which  were  private  waste  or   nautor (reclaimed) lands.  Apart, however, from that difficulty, we are of the view that, the judgments do not advance the  case of the appellant any further.  They -proceeded primarily  on the entries in the Wajib-ul-arz, the effect of which entries we have already considered at great length.  Admittedly,  no plea of res judicata arose on these judgments, and they were merely  evidence  of  an assertion and  determination  of  a similar  claim  made by the Raja in respect of  other  lands within the Jagir. As  to  the oral evidence in the case, none  of  the  Courts below  placed  any  great  reliance  on  it.   The   learned Subordinate Judge did not accept the oral evidence given  on behalf  of  the  appellant;  the  learned  District   Judge, referring to the oral evidence of the respondents, said that he  could  not  accept that evidence in  preference  to  the overwhelming historical and documentary evidence led by  the appellant.   With  regard to the  appellant’s  witnesses  he seemed  to think that some of them at least  were  reliable. The  learned Judges of the High Court did not refer  to  the oral evidence except for a slight reference to the state- 915 ment of Salig Ram, the Raja’s attorney, who appears to  have stated that the Raja got his rights in 1893-94; how the Raja got his rights then was not explained.  Learned counsel  for the  appellant has referred us to the evidence of  one  Babu Kailash Chander (witness No. 2 for the appellant), who was a Forest  Range Officer.  This gentleman said that  the  trees standing on the land belonging to the landlords were  exclu- sively  owned  by the Raja Sahib.  In  cross-examination  he admitted  that he had no knowledge of the trees in suit  nor did  he  know on which lands the trees  were  standing.   He admitted  that  he  knew nothing about  the  rights  of  the Jagirdar and the landlords inter se with regard to the lands in dispute.  It is obvious that such evidence does not prove the case of the appellant.  Had the Raja been in  possession of the pine trees for such a long time as he now claims, one would  expect  him  to produce some  documents  showing  his -income,  etc.  from  the trees.   No  such  documents  were produced. For these reasons, we hold that the appellant has failed  to establish  his claim to the pine trees, and the decision  of the  High  Court  is  correct.  The  appeals  fail  and  are dismissed.  In the circumstances of these cases, where  much of the doubt as respects the right claimed arose out of  the entries  made  in the Wajibul-arz, the High  Court  properly directed  that there would be no order for costs  either  in the  High Court or in the Courts below.  We think that  that order was correct, and we also pass no order as to costs  of the hearing in this Court. Appeals dismissed. 916