Skip to content


Pandit Hari Kishan Shastir Vs. Ratan Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1934All973
AppellantPandit Hari Kishan Shastir
RespondentRatan Singh
Excerpt:
- .....held that the transfer of muafi rights was contrary to public policy, as it involved the loss of land revenue in favour of persons for whose benefit the original remission was not made. the muafi in question was given by the nepal government many generations ago to certain brahmins that they might give their blessings for the welfare of the maharaja of nepal. as the learned district judge has remarked it is difficult to see why the transfer of such a muafi should be held to be contrary to public policy. the only condition attached to the grant of the muafi was that the holders should generation after generation give their blessings to the maharaja of nepal. the british government could hardly consider it contrary to public policy if the holders of the grant, on transferring their.....
Judgment:

King, J.

1. This is a defendant's appeal against a decision of the District Judge of Kumaun decreeing the plaintiff's suit and reversing the decision of the trial Court. The question that arises in this appeal is whether the interest of a muafidar in Kumaun is transferable. The plaintiff purchased the rights of certain muafidars in a village and brought a suit for declaration that he is entitled to realise khaikari rent and malikana, and for recovery of arrears. One of the principal defences was that muafi rights cannot be transferred. The trial Court gave effect to this defence and held that the transfer of muafi rights was contrary to public policy, as it involved the loss of land revenue in favour of persons for whose benefit the original remission was not made. The muafi in question was given by the Nepal Government many generations ago to certain Brahmins that they might give their blessings for the welfare of the Maharaja of Nepal. As the learned District Judge has remarked it is difficult to see why the transfer of such a muafi should be held to be contrary to public policy. The only condition attached to the grant of the muafi was that the holders should generation after generation give their blessings to the Maharaja of Nepal. The British Government could hardly consider it contrary to public policy if the holders of the grant, on transferring their rights should cease to give their blessings to the Maharaja of a foreign State. Prima facie proprietary rights are transferable and it is for the defendants to show that such rights cannot be transferred. It has been suggested that under Section 6(d) the muafi rights cannot be transferred, but Clause (d) applios to an interest in property restricted in its enjoyment to the owner personally. That does not apply to this case where the muafi rights were not given to a certain person personally, but were given to certain persons and their descendants in perpetuity.

2. The only question for consideration is whether the transfer can be held to be invalid under Clause (h), Section 6 on the ground that it is contrary to public policy. As I have already remarked there does not seem to be any objection on the ground of public polioy, moreover, it appears from the Manual on the Land Tenures of the Kumaun Division by Mt. Stowell at p. 64 that muafi estates are simple hiasadari holdings on which the revenue has been remitted and the proprietary right in them follows the usual rule applicable to revenue paying land. From this it would appear that muafi rights can be transferred just in the same way an ordinary proprietary rights in revenue paying land. There is no suggestion that such rights are not transferable. It may be that the Grown resume the grant and assess revenue upon the land if it pasnes out of the ownership of the descendants of the original grantees, but that is another question. No case has been cited in which it has been held that such rights are not transferable. It appears, moreover, that the defendant himself admitted having transferred muafi rights on a previous occasion. So the transfer is certainly not unprecedented. I see no reason to dissent from the view taken by the lower appellate Court and dismiss the appeal with costs.

3. Permission for Letters Patent appeal is refused.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //