Holding

The appellants are not descendants of a former ruling chief and therefore are not entitled to any grant of money or pension under section 5(3)(ii) of the Act.

Summary

The appellants, members of the Bhuskute family of Timarni, claimed they were descendants of a former ruling chief and therefore entitled to a grant of money or pension under section 5(3)(ii) of the Central Provinces and Berar Revocation of Land Revenue Exemptions Act, 1948. The State Government rejected the claim, holding that the ancestors were merely jagirdars who lost sovereign powers after the British acquisition of the territory. The Madhya Pradesh High Court affirmed the State Government's order. The Supreme Court examined the historical grants, the nature of the ancestors' titles, and the meaning of "ruling chief" under the Act, concluding that the ancestors never possessed sovereign attributes and thus the appellants were not descendants of a ruling chief. Consequently, they were not eligible for the pension, and the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the ancestors of the appellants qualify as "descendants of a former Ruling Chief" within the meaning of section 5(3)(ii) of the Central Provinces and Berar Revocation of Land Revenue Exemptions Act, 1948.
Whether the burden of proving such descent and sovereign attributes lies on the claimants.
Whether the State Government's refusal to grant the pension was jurisdictionally correct.

Legislation cited

Subjects

land revenue exemptionruling chiefpensionCentral Provincesjagirdarsovereigntyburden of proofhistorical title

Judgment

•

729 A

SARDAR GOVINDRAO & ORS.

v.

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. B
May 7, 1982

[D.A. DESAI, A.P. SEN AND BAHARUL !SLAM, JJ.]

C~ntr~iProvlncet & Berar Revocation of Lantf. Re~enue Exe;,,ptions Act c
1948-Section S(3) {ii)-Grant of money or pension-Persons entitled to-Burden
ofproving that they were descendants. of a Ruling Chief-Rests upon claimants.

International law-Cessid~-Under treaty-Rights of inhabitants-Ho~
,acquired.

• D
Words atldphrates :-Ruling Chief-Sovereignty-Meaning of.

In consideration of. the loyal services rendered by them, t_wo remote ances-
tors of the appellants received in 175] a sanad from tbe Peshwa Balaji Baji Rao
by which they were conferred the tit)e of "Bhuskute" and were made sur m:andloi
and sur kanungo. Tbdy were created watandars with the reservation of sur ct'esh-
mukhi in respect of certain mahals in Sarkar Handia and in Sarkar Bijagarh, rent..
free iii perpetuity with right to retain 4% of t,he revenue.' They remained the
Amils or Governors of the Pesbwa at Handia till 1768 A.O. In the mean-time
they were e;ranted inams. of certain villages .
•

-
After th~ defeat of the Maharatta army in the third battle of Panipat in
'.1761 A.D. the appellants ancestors lost their position and power a.s sur mandloi
and sur kanungo in Sarkar Handia, By tbe sanad of 1777 the Peshwa created F
them the Jagirdar pf Timarni" cociiprising of Timami and four other villages
. together with the fort with sur deshrnukhi in perpetuity: The sanad of 1798
-permitted them to maintain irregular soldiery for rCcovery 'l!'J_a.xes and cesses.
...... The grant of jagir was tater confirmed. by the Scindias and th.is was continued
by the British.

G
After the Scindias ceded the territory in question to the British in 1860,
the British Go:vernment undertook to recognise and respect the existing rights
and fitles of its new 1ubjects to their lands.

After a full inv"!.tigation into the nature of the estates tratlsferred and
the nature of ·tenur~s of their new su.bjects, the British· Government declared · ff
in 1865 that except "the cbief, the Chief of Makrai, all tb~ zamindars are to be
\ regarded and treated as ordinary British subje1<t~". The esta\01 in que$tion, which
\r . r
I.
' '
730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1982) 3 s.c.a,
A were located in the di~tricts of ~oshangabad and Nimar, were held by the
appellants on favourable terms as Jagirdars, Muafidars and Ubaridara in which
they enjoyed exemption from payment of land revenue amounting to Rs. 27,895
per annum.
•
Having found that there was no justification for continuing the exemption
from liability to pay land revenue hitherto enjoyed- by certain famlies in the
B former province of. Central Provinces and Berar, and also _because it resulted in
Joss tQ the public exchequer, the -provincial legislature passed the Central Pro-
vinces a·nd Berar Revocation of Land Revenue Exemptions Act, 1948 by which
all prevalent exemptions from liabiJity to pay land revenue were revoked.

In their application under section 5(3) (ii) of the Act the appellants clai·
c med that th~ "Bhuskute'' family of Timarni, to which they belonged, were the
descendants of a former ruling chief and in that capacity they were entitled to a
substantial grant of money or pension for rilaintenance in terms of section
5 (3) (ii).

Rejecting their apPlicatiori the State Government held that the ancestors
of the appellants were no more than the wat9.ndars of a small territory under the
D Peshwas and later under the Scindias and with the transfer of sovereignty to the
British -they lost their administrative power and retained only their muafi. It
accordingly, held that the appellants were not the dsecendants of a former Ruling
Chief and so were not entitled to the grant ofAtny amount or pension in terms
of section 5(3) (ii) of the Act.

The High Court declined to intervene with the order of the State Govern·
E ment on the ground that the appellants never enjoyed any status higher than that
of a Jagirdar.

Dismissing the appeal,

F HELD : Not being the d.escendants of a former Ruling Chief, the appel·
lants were not entitled to any money or pension in terms of section S (3) (ii) of
Central Provinces and.Land Revocation of Land Revenue Act, 1948. [754 D]

.It does not appear from the impugned order of the State Government •
-
that there \\•as any error of jurisdiction in .refusing to grant money or pension to
the appellants under section 5 (3) (ii) of the Act or any incorrect determination
G of the basic facts on theit part in reaching the conclusion that their ancestors
never exercised sovereign powers of a Ruling Chief in relation to tbejagirs of
Timarni granted by the Peshwas and later confirmed by the Scindias and conti'-
. nued by the British at the request of the Scindias. [738 ,H; 739 A-Cl

The expression "Ruling Chief" bas not been defined in the Act and must
H' be understood as the term is understood in common parlance. Normally it
connotes "a person who is endowed with the content of sovereignty and also has
!be at\rib11tes of a soverei~n". ~overeipty, according to its normal legal wnno-
SARDAR GOVINDRAO V. M.P. STATE 731

tation, is the supreme power which governs the body politic, or society w.hich A
constitutes the Sta~e, and this power is independent of th{! particular form of
Government, whether monarcbial autocratic or democratic. [736 E; 737 A-CJ

After a sovereign State has acquired territ<;).~y, either by conquest or by
1

cession ub.der treaty .or by the occupation of territory theretofor~ unoccupied by
the recognised Ruler or otherwise, an inhabitant of1 a territor.Y can enforce in the
• municipal courts only such properfetary rights as fue sovereign has conferred B
oi: recognised. Even if a treaty of cession stipulates that certain inhabitants
shall enjoy certain rights, that gives them no right which they can so
enforce. The meaning of a general statement in ·a proclamation or a treaty that
existing rights would be recognised is _that the Government will recognise such
rights as upon investig~tion it finds existed. The Government does not thereby
~ _renounce its right to recognise only such titles as it considers should be recognised
-• /
-•
nor confer up~n thC municipal courts any powers to adjudicate in the
matter. [747 H; 748 A-Cl
c

Va}esingji Joravarling}I & Ori. v. Secretary of State for India in Council
L.R. (1923-24] SI IA 3S7; and Bir Bikram Deo v. Secretary of State for India in
Council, L.R.[1911-12] 39 IA 31; and Marland Rao v. Ma/har Rao, L.R. [1927-28]
SS IA 4S, relied on. D

l(unwarlal Singh v. Provinbial Government, Central Provinces and Berar.
l.L.R, [1944] Nagpur 181, referred to.

The burden of provin~ that after cession of the terri~ory by the Scindias
t6 the British by the treaty of 1860, the British Government acknowledged or
recognised the existence of any sovereign rights with the ancestors of the appel~
Iants, was upon thCm and that burden they have failed to discharge. On the
contrary, the British Government decided on the basis of the enquiry that the
Zamindars ill the Central Provinces including those of the appellants' ancestors.
had to be regarded and treated as ordinary British subjects. [749 B, C]
>

_...,. Viewed in the hi_$torical perspective the appellants pretensions that their F
ancestor's acquired attributes· of sovereignty in relation to the jagir of Timarni can
-·-"'--~~hardly stand scrutiny. The tenor of all the sanads gtanted- to the ancestors of
• the appellants shows that they were nothing more than Jagirdars of Timarni and
that they bad never attained the status of.a feudatory or tributary Ruling Chief
1r- under the sovereignty of the Peshwas or the Scindias. The British Government
never recognised the appellants' ancestors who like all other Zarnindars and
Jagirdars in the Central Provinces, were laying claim to be recognised as a chief- G
tain to be a Ruling Chief. After the establishment -0f the British rule, the Gover-
nor General came to the conclusion that the ancestors of the appellants had 'to
be regarded and treated as ordinary Britiih subjects. [744 C; 74S F; 747 GJ

CIVIL ~PPELLATE JUlllSDICTIQN ; Civil Appe~! No, ~5() · H
Of 1971.
732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1982] 3 s.c.il.
. ',
From the Judgment and order dated the 9th March, 1970
,
of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur) in Misc.
Petition No. 61 of 1967.

V.M. · Tarkunde and A. G. Ratnaparkhi for the Appellants.

Gopal Subramaniam, S.A. Shroff' and D.P. M ohanty for the
Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SEN, J. This appeal by certificate is directed against the -
c judgment and order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated ' · ..
March 10, 1970, by which ,the High Coutt declined to interfere \ ••
with an order of the State Government. of Madhya Pradesh dated ~
September 9, 1966 disallowing the appellant's claim to the grant
of money or pension under cl. (ii) of sub-s. (3) of s. 5 of the
, Central Provinces and Berar Revocation of Land Rev~nue Exemp-
tions Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') oh the ground that they a.re·
noi entitled to the· grant of such money or pension not being
'the descendants of a former Ruling Chief' in terms thereof.

After the Central Provinces and Berar Revocation of Land
Revenue Exemptions Act, 1948 was brought into force, the appel-
lants who !ield estates in the districts of Hoshangabad and Nimar
on favourable terms as Jagirdar's Muafidars and Ubaridars enjoyed ....
exemption from payment of land revenue amounting to an aggregate,

-
of Rs. 27,895.05p. per annum, made applications to the Deputy •
Commissioners of Hoshangabad and Nimar claiming that the
members of the Bhuskute family of Timarni to whjch they belonged
were the descendants of a former Ruling Chief and therefore were ,,[//
entitled to ·a substantial grant of money or pension for their suitahle. •
maintenance in terms ·of cl. (ii) of sub-s. (3) of s. 5 of the
Act. It was alleged that although their ancestors had acquired -f
the rights of a Ruling Chief by virtue of the. sanads granted by the
G
Peshwas and repognized by the Scindias and were all along treated
as such even by the British, they were wrongly recorded as
Jagirdars of Timarni in the record of rights which was DO evidence
of their real status. The applications were forwarded by the
H respective Depaty Commissioners to the State Government of
Madhya Pradesh. The State Government, by its order dated
May 13, 1955, rejected their prayer holding th~t t!:tey were not
&AllbAll GoVJNbitAo v. M.P. STATE (Sen, J.) 133
'I" \
• entitled to ~he grant of such amount or pension not being the
descendants of a former Rulin~ Chief within the meaning of cl.'
1'.'
(ii) ofsub-s. (3) of s. 5 of the Act. A Full Bench of the Madhya
Prade$h High Court by its 'judgment dated April 20, 1959 declined
to interfere on the ground that \he proceedings under sub-s. (3) of
• s. 5 qf the Act could not be said to be judical or quasi-judicfal in
natute as the use of the word "may" in sub-s. (3) of s. 5· of the
Act)nade 'the grant of money or pension in the discretion of the
Sta~ i3overnment. Disagreeing with the High Court, this Court in

-- Saidar Govindrao & Ors. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh(') held that
~'e word "may" used in sub-s. (3) of s. 5 must, in the context, be
· constrned to have a compulsive force and therefore on the existence
of the condition precedent, the gran~ o( money or pension became
c
.1. .obligatory on the Government notwithstanding that in sub-s. (2) the
Gov,ernment had power to pass such orders as it thought fit. It
observed that in passing orders bn the, applications made by the
apellants the State Go~ernment had to act in a' quasi-jtiqicial
manner: The appellants therefore had ~be given an opportunity D
to state their case ·and were also ~ntitled to know why their
claim had been rejected.

In compliance with the directions issued by thi~ Court in
Govindrao' s case, supra, the Slate Government afforded th.e
appellants an opportunity of hearing on August 6, 1966 to subs- .
tantiate their claim for grant of money or pension under cl.
·.,,_ (ii) of sub-s. (3)·of s. 5 of the Act on the ground that they were
>
ithe descendants of a former Ruling '
Chief in' terms of the
section. The State Government in the impugned order specifically
- mentions that 'the appellants mainly based their claim only on
,~ the sanad issued during. the regime of Chhatrapati Shahu in
' '

<:>..J.177
,_ A.D.", that is, granted by the Peshwa Madhavrao by w4ich
'

• their ancesto; Ramchandra Bulla! was granted the jagir of Timarni.
• _.,. On a consttuction of the document, the State . Government held
that the sanad did not confer on the grantee the powers of a Ruling
Chief. It observed that the later grants by the Peshwas referred to
the ancest9rs of the,appellants as sur-mandloi and sur-kanungo and .G
not as a Ruling Chief" and the grants were in the nature of inams '
being emoluments appurtenant to their office. It further held!hat even
after the suzerainty had· passed frpm the Peshwas to the Scindias,
the grant of village Piplia and Bhaili to their ancestors by Daulatrao

(I) (196S] 1 $.C.R. 678.,
SUPIUlME COURT IUiPOR'l'S (1~8~J j S.C.ll.
.,.
A Scindia by the two sanads of 1802 and 1804 referred to them as ,
sur-mandloi and sur-kanungo and not as a Ruling Chief, and they
were conferred no rights except' that of a mere inamd11r. During
the period of management of the tract by the British on behalf
of the Scindias from the years 1844 to 1860, the jagir was continued
as a muafi in perpetuity at the desire of the Scindias. As regards •
8 the period after the transfer of suzerainty the British never
recognized the ancestors of the appellants to be a Ruling Chief. In
coming to that conclusion, it relied upon the decision of the Gover·
nor General in Council conveyed by the letter of the Secretary to the
Chief Commissioner .of Central Provinces dated March 3, 1865. Tho. _.,..
State Government taking into consideration all these circumstances ~--
c held that the ancestors of the appellants were no more than the
. '
watandars of small·· territory under the Peshwas and later under
>
the Scindias and with· the transfer of sovereignty to the British,
they lost their administrative powers and retained only their muafi.
The State Government accordingly held that the appellants were not
the descendants of a former Ruling Chief and therefore were not
D entitled to the grant of any amount or pension under cl. (ii) of
sub-s. (3) of s. 5 qf the Act.

On a consideration of the material on record; the High Court
' came•to the conclusion that there was no error apparent on the
E record to ·warrant interference with impugned order of the State
Government. According to the High Court, cl. (ii) of sub·s. (3) of
s. 5 of the Act authorized the State Government to grant money ""
or pension to those fami_lies alone whose ancestors had been granted

-
remissions in land revenue, not on ac~ount of any services rendered '
by th~m but in consideration of the fact that they were deprived
F of their sovereign powers. It referred to the existence of a
. feudal system known as the jagirdari system, prevalea t in the erst;••l.J~
while.State of Gwalior, which was a legacy of the past, ~nder which •
the land revenue of a territory was assigned to a chief or a noble, -I
known as the jagirdar, to supp_ort troops, police and for specified
services.(') It observed that the Legislature has kept the distinc·
G tion in view while enacting cl. (ii) of sub-s. (3) of s. 5 of the Act.
After reterring to the material on record, it came to the same con·
clusion as the State Government and held that the ancestors of the
appellants never enjoyed the powers of a tributary or feudatory chief

H (I) V.P. Menon : _The Story of the Integration of the Indian States.
p. 224.
SARbAR GOVINDRAO v. M.P. s'rATE (Sen, J.) 13~

under the Peshwas or the Scindias that they held status·of sur·mandloi A
• · and sur·kanungo and were holding the lands muafi in perpetuity,
being in the nature of service grant. The conferral of rights in them
by the Peshwas in favour of a loyal servant and instead of making
• a cash grant for the services rendered; they were permitted to collect
their remuneration from a part of the revenue and maintain them·
selves from the profits derived from the lands appurtenant to their B
office. It would thus appear that both the High Court as well as
the State Government were of the · view that the appellants never
enjoyed any status higher than lhat of a jagirdar.

The whole object and purpose of .the legislation, as reflected
in the Preamble, is to revoke all prevalent exemptions from liability
c.
to pay land revenue. The Legislature felt that there was no justi-
fication for ·continuing the exemption from liability to pay land·
revenue hitherto enjoyed causing loss to the public exchequer. ·
Except grants for £pecific purposes, t.he exemptions were mostly in
consideration of loyalty and help rendered in the past and there D
was no reason why they should be allowed to be continued at
present and cause unavoidable loss to the Revenue. Where such
exemptions were granted for services and it was considered that the
services should continue, or where it was considered necessary to
continue in individual cases, certain grants made in the past, provi-
sion has been made \o do so by the award of money grants and E
pensions. Sub·s. ( 1) of·s. 3 provides : · .

"3. (I) Every estate, mahal, village or lan·d to
' whatever purpose applied and wherever situate, which was
heretofore exempted from payment of the whole or part
of land revenue by special grant of, or contract with the F
Crown, or under the provision of any law or rule for the
time being in force or in pursuance of any other instrument,
shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any such
gr~nt, contract, law, rule or instrument, be liable from the
agricultural year 1948-49.
G
(i) In the Central Provinces to the payment of land
revenue equal to the amount of Kamil-Jama as revised
by the Central Provinces Revision of the Land Revenue
of Estates Act,' 1947, or by\the Central Provinces H.
Revision of the Land Revenue of Mahals Act, 1947, as
the case may be."
136 , sUPRBMB COURt RBPO!lts t1982) :l S.C,tl.

A The Legislature however thought it fit to mitigate the rigour '-r
in certain specific cases by making a · provision in sub-s. (lJ
of s. 5 that any person adversely affected by the provisions
'
of s. 3 may apply to the Deputy Commissioner of the district
for the award of a grant of money or pension, and sub-s. (2) thereof
provides that the Deputy Commissioner shall forward the applica·
tion to the State Government, which may pass such orders as it
deems fit. Sub-s. (3) of s. S of the Act provides :

"5 (3) The State Government may make ·a grant of
money or _pension :-
c I
(i) for the maintenance or upkeep ·Of any religious,
charitable -or public institution or service of a like
nature, or,

(ii) for a suitable maintenance of any family of a descen- ,
D dan t from a former Ruling Chief."

In sub-s. (4) of s. 5 of the Acl, any amount sanctioned by way
of grant of money or pension under this section shall 6e a charge on
the revenue of the State:
E The expression "Ruling Chief" has not been defined in the
Act and must therefore be understood as in common parlance.
The meaning of the word "Ruler" as given in Shorter Oxford
English Dictionary, 3rd edn., vol. 2, p. 1867 is : "one who, or that

-
<
which, exercises rule, especially of supreme or sovereign kind".
F Normally the expression "Ruling Chief" connotes "a person who
is endowed with the content of sovereignty and also has the attributes
of a ~overeign". According to Blacks' Legal Dictionary, 5th edn.,
p. 1252 the legal conception of "sovereignty" is stat,ed thus : •
"The supreme, ab~cllute, and uncontrollable power
by which any independent state is governed; supreme
G political authority, paramount control of. the constitution
and frame of government and its administration; the self-
sufficient source of political power from which all specific
political powers are derived; the international independence
H of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating
its internal affairs without foreign dictation; also a political
society, or state, which is sovereign and independent."
§AllDAA ao\t1NDRAO v. M.P. STATE (Sen; J.) 131
"Sovereignty" means "supremacy in respect of power, A
'dominion or rank; supreme dominion authority or rule".
"Sovereignty" is the right to govern. The term "s1>vereignty" as
applied to states implies "supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power
by which any state is governed, and which resides within itself,
... whether residing in a single individual or a number of individuals;
ot in the whole body of the people." Thus, sovereignty, according B
to its normlll legal connotation, is the supreme power which governs
the body politic, or society which constitutes the state, and this
power is independent of the particular form of government, whether
monarchial, autocratic or democratic. ',

c
Aci:ording to Laski in "A Grammar of Politics'', 1957 Reprint
<(hap. II, p. 50
"The legal aspect of sovereignty is best examined by a
statement of the form given to it by John Austin. - In every
legal analysis of the State, he argued, it is first of alt D
necessary to discover in the given society that definite supe-
. rior to which habitual obedience is rendered by the mass
, of men. 'that superior must not itself obey any higher
authority. Whep we discover the authority which gives
commands habitually obeyed, itself not receiving them,
we have the sovereign power in the State. In an indepen- E
dent political community that sovereign is determinate and
absolute. Its will is illimitable because, if it could not be
constrained to act, it would cease to be supreme, since it
> would then be subject to the constraining power. Its will
is indivisible because, if power over certain functions or
persons is absolutely and irrevocably entrusted to a given F
body, the sovereign then ceases to enjoy universal supre-
macy and therefore ceases by definition to be sovereign."
•
It is not necessary to enter into the concept of sovereignty,
one of the most controversial ideas in political science and inter-
G
national law, which is closely related, to the diffic_ult concepts of
'State and Government, of independence 11nd democracy, except to
touch upon the juristic character of the Indian State to discern the
necessary attributes of sovereignty. The Indian States were neither
independent nor sovereign but subject to the paramountcy of the
British Crown. Sir William Lee Warner, the acknowledged authority
on Indian States, in his work ,"The Native States of India; 1910"
i

I
SUPREME COURT REPOR'rS tJ982) 5 S.C.R.

A characterizes them as "semi-sovereign". There . is no question that
there was a paramount power in the British Crown, but perhaps it '
is better understood and not explained. The indivisibility of the
sovereignty on which Austin insists, did not belong to the Indian
system of sovereign states..

B The degree of sovereignty exerc~ed by the· different rulers
varied greatly as the areas under their dominion. The greater ~ ,
princes administered the internal affairs of their states with almost
complete independence, having revenues and armies of their own,
and the power of "life and death over their subjects. At the other
end of the scale were petty chiefs with a jurisdiction hardly higher ........_~•
c than that of an ordinary magistrate and between. these extremes lay
much gradation. The authority of. each· ruler was determined by
treaties or engagements with the British Government or by practice -~
that had grown up in the course of their relations with British India.
The paramount power was with the British Crown and it had
never parted with any of its prerogatives. As Sir Henry Maine
D said :

"There may be found in India every shade and variety
of sovereignty, but there is only one independent sovereign,
the British Government. ..,The mode or degree in which
E sovereignty is distributed between the British Government
and any Native State is always a question of fact which
has to be separatcily decided in each case, and to which no
general rules apply."

After the constitution of the Central Provinces in 1861 A.O.,
F fifteen of the Zamindaris were considered to be of sufficient impor-
tance to warrant their being constituted Feudatory States. They ~
were : Nandgaon, Korea, Bastar, Raigarli, Sarguja, Khairagarh, ~
Kanker, Jashpur, Kawardha, Sarangarh, Udaipur, Sakti, Chhui-
kadan, Makrai and Changbhakar. These fifteen Feudatory States
are specified i, the First Schedule to the Government of India Act,
G 1935. Timarui was not so listed in the.First Schedule as it was a
Jagir and not a Feudatory State.

The cardinal question on which the decision of the appeal
H must turn is whether the appellants are the descendants of a former
Ruling Chief within the meaning of cl. (ii) of sub-s. (3) of s. 5 of the
Act and are therefore entitled to the grant"of money or pension in
•
~Ali.bAli. oovtN}iwH. M.P. STATE (Sen, J.) 1391

terms of the section. That depends on whether the ancestors of the A
•
appellants had acquired the attributes of sovereignty in relation to
the jagir of Timarni granted by the Peshwa Madhavrao to two of
their ancestors Naroo Bulla! and his brother Ramchandra Bullal's
grandson Madhav Rao in 1717 A.D. As hereinbefore adumbrated,
the appellants rested their case before the State Government on the
sanad of the Peshwa in 1777 A;D. in respect of the jagir of Timarni. B
It does not appear from the impugne~ order of .the State Govern-
ment that there is any error of jurisdiction in refusing to grant
money or pension to the appellants under cl. (ii) of sub·s. (3) of s. 5
of the Act or any incorrect determination of the basic facts on their
part in reaching the conclusion that the appellants' ancestors never
exercised sovereign powers of a Ruling Chief in relation to the
c
jagir of Timarni granted by the Peshwas and later confirmed by
the Scindias and continued by the British at the request of the
Scindias.

There can be no doubt that the ancestors of the appellants D
exercised considerable power and authority in the Narbada Valley at
a certain period of time. The description of the family as 'extracted
from the Hoshangabad Gazetteer, 1908, at pp. 97-98, reads :

''The most important Brahman family is that of the
Bhuskute, who hold the Timarni Estate as well as consider-
able property in the Nimar District and in Holkar's terri-
. t<)rY. The family is about I 50 years old and originaHy
> came from the Ratnagiri District in the Bombay Presidency.
Its founders were the two brothers, Ramchaodra Balla! and
Naro Balla!, who five generations ago, took service under
the Peshwas. The brothers subjugated the c;ountry west F
of the Ganja!, which was. then called the Handia Sarkar,
and forced the Makrai Raja to surrender half his territory.
The sternness with which they repressed the wasting
raids of the aboriginal tribes, earned them the name of \
Bhuskute, or "Chopper". Kurhade or axemen, is another
name by which the famjly is sometimes Known, and the axes G
which are said to have been the instruments of execution
are still preserved at Khargaon and duly worshipped at the
Dasahra festival by the Bhuskute and their retainers. Io
reward for these services the brothers received in 1751 the
hereditary offices of Sir Mandloi and Sir Kanungo in the
ff
Sarkars of Bijagarb and Handia, wit.h villages and tracts of
'• .·

suRkEME COURT REPoilrs (1982] j S C.ll.

A . land rent-free, percentages on the revenue, a.nd rights of •
taxation. The Bhuskute proved as successful in peace as
they had been in war, keeping the country in order, and
settling culiivators from Khandesh in the uninhabited parts.
In 1777, the Peshwa Madho Jl.ao gave them the fort of
Timarni as a permanent jagir. Daul! Rao Sindhia subse·
8 quently added two neighbouring villages and two more
were acq.uired either _by force or gift from the Raja or
Makrai, the five villages forming a semi-independent jagir.
Until the thirty years' settlement, the ki/edar or ".ho~er of
the fort" at Timarni exercised jurisdiction in civil, criminal,
revenue and other petty cases. These powers were-with-
c . drawn at sett1e111ent, but the estate continued to be held in
jagir until the ~ettlement of 1891-96, when the villages1were
registered as muafi or .revenue-free, though the honorary
title of jagirdar was still allowed to be retained."

D The history Qf the· matter goes to the middle of the 18th
century. In 1742 A.D., the Peshwa. Balaji Bajirao infaded the
lmcient kingdom of Garha-Mandla and exacted the tri.bute Q,f chauth
or one-fourth of the revenue, amounting to 4 Iakhs of rupees. He
took the fort and killed the Ruler of Garha-Mandla. From this ·
time the Mandia kingdom lay .at the mercy of the Marahtas.
E The Peshwa marched up the valley on his way from Burhanpur to
attack Mandia and subdued Han.dia Paragana. (') The predatory
Maratha troops plundered, burnt and looted .the entire Narbada
valley. Col. Sir W.H. Sleeman remarks that :

"By this dreadful invasion of the Peshwa with his host
of fqllowers, the whole country east of Jubbidpur was made
waste and de-populate."

The Mughal power was effectively driven out and we hear no more ......
of a Muhammadan Governor of Harda Handia; but his place. was
taken by the two brothers Naroo. Bulla! and. Ramchandra Bulla!,
G who were left by the Peshwa in charge of the Handia Sarkar,
which had been rendered desolate in consequence of the inroads of
· mara~ders and dacoits and were abounding in dense thick
jungles. "(hey were the Amils of the Peshwa and held the Harda

...
" (I) Imperial Gazetteer of!ndia, Vpl. 13, 1908; p. 181.
I .
SARDAR GOVINDRAO v. M.P. STATE (Sen, J.) 741
-( Handia tract on Amanat system remitting to. the headquarters the A
• whole collection, minus expendi\ure. It seems that they picked
up a quarrel with' the Ruler of Makrai and as be was unable to
make any resistance they forced him to sign· a treaty in 1750 A.D.
giving up half his dominion.(') They appeared to have dQJ1e loyal
, and good services to the Peshwa by their administrative abilities in
keeping the territory in good order and in settling cultivators from B
, Khandesh in the uninhabited parts by clearing the jungles.

In reward for their loyal services, the two brothers, Naroo
Bulla! and Ramch;mdra Bulla!, received in ! 75JA.D. a sanad from
the Peshwa Balaji Bajirao by which they were conferred the title of
"Bhuskute" and were made sur-mandloi and sur-kanungo. They
c
were created watandars with the reservation of sur-deshmukhi in res-
pect of 22 mahals in Sarkar ·Handia rent-free in perpetuity with
right to retain 4% of the revenue: 2.5% on account of sur-mandloi-
ship and J.5% · OD aCCOUDt Of SUf·kanungoship, and rights Of
taxation .etc. By a separat~ sanad of 1751 A.D. the Peshwa appointed D
them sur-mandloi and sur-kanungo and created watandars in respect
of 32 mahals in Sarkar :Bijagarh, with the reservation of sur-
deshmukhi, with the .same percentage of revenue and similar rights.
They appeared to have done good service to the Peshwas not only
.in shearing Ruler of Makrai but in keeping the country in
good ordeyand in settling cultivators from Khandesh in the
uninhabiteq parts. Both these sanads show that the Peshwa 11/ade the

. grants in recogniti9n of their loyal services. The documents' contain
a recital more or less to the. effect that :

"The two brothers presented themselves at the court of F
the Peshwa and petitioned for grant of watans as a reward
as they had by thei.r military skill and courage and also by
their administrative abilities cleared these tracts which had
been rendered ·,desolate in consequence of in roads of
marauders and dacoits and were abounding in dense thick.
1
jungles, and made them safe for, habitation." . G

It appears that Naroo Bulla! and Ramchandra Bulla! remained
'.

(I) Sir Charles Elliot: Report on the Lane! Revenue System of the District H
of Fjoshan~abad, Central Provinces; 18~5. pp ..28, '.19,
A
742 SUPREME COURt REPORTS
.. [1982] 3 s.c.R.
,,,._
the Amils or Governors of the Peswha at Handia till 1768 A,D.(1)
and in the meanwhile they were granted by the Pesl:twa Balaji •
Bajirao in ams of villages Pokharni and Masangaon by two sanads·
in 1754 A.D., and similar inams of village3 Dhupkaran, Underkuch
and Samarda by three sanads of 1759 A.D. from. out of the 431
villages .surrendered by Ruler of Makrai.
B
There was a twilight zone after 1750 A.O. and very little is
known about the Harda Handia tract. It will presently be seen that
the sanad of 1777 A.D. granted by Pesbwa Madhavrao and the
subsequent sanads of 1798 and. 1800 A.O. granted by Peshwa
c Bajirao II on which the appellants strongly rely are of little or no
assistance as by then the supremacy of the Pesbwa over the Narbada
valley was on the decline.

It' appears that the Narbada valley bad gone out of the
D control of the Peshwas by 1797 A.O. With the.fluctuating fortunes
of the Peshwas the ancestors of the appellants were virtually denu·
ded of all their powers. The annihilation of the Maratha army at
the hands of Ahmed Shah Durrani in the third battle of Panipat in
1761, followed by the premature death of the Peshwa Balaji Baji-
rao in the same year seemed to foreshadow the immediate dissolu-
E tion of the Maratha empire. There followed a sudden revolt against
the Maralha domination everywhere in Hindustan. The eclipse of
the Maratha power naturally cast its . shadow on the Barda Handia
tract; and the Ruler of Makrai thought to improve the occasion
by driving out the Amils of the Peshwa out of Handia, but he was •
himself repulsed and ki)led by a force of Goshains.
F
I
In or.about 1750 A.O. Raghuji Bhonsle of Nagpur overran the
whole range of hills from Gawilgarh to Mahadeo, and reduced the
country east of Handia and south of the Narbada except the portion
held by Bhopal. Hostilides between the Bhopal and i Nagpur
G rulers commenced in 1795 and lasted with little intermission for
twenty years. Hosbangabad was in that year taken by the
. Nagpur troops; but was retaken in 1802 by Wazir Muhamad,

H (I} Sir Charles Elliot: Report on the Land Revenue System of the District
of Hosbangahad Central Provincei: 1865, p. 35·
I
SARDAR GOVINDRAO ~. M.P .. STATE (Sen, J.) 743.

, the celebrated minister of Bhopal. The Bhopal dominions north A
· ~f the Narbada were finally lost to the Marathas in 1808. During
these wars the Pindaris, first summoned· by Wazir Muhammad
to his assistance, but afterwards deserting to his enemies, plundered
the country impartially in all directions.. It is estimated that not
a single village escaped being burnt once or twice during the fifteen
years for which their depredations lasted, and·- the greater part of B
Sarkar Handia wa.s entirely depopulated. The Pindaris were extirpa-
ted in 1817; and in 1818 the portions of the district belonging to the
Nagpur kingdom were ceded, under an agreement subsequently
confirmed by the treaty of 1826. In 1844 the Harda Hadia tr~ct was
made over by the Scindia in part payment for the Gwalior Contin-
gent, and in 1860 it was permanently transferred and became British
c
territory:(')

After the crushing .defeat of the Maratha army by Ahmed
Shah Durrani in the third battle of Panipat in 1761 A. D. the
· Pesbwas never crossed the Narbada valley. There was an intense D
st,ruggle between Mahadji Scindia and. Jaswantrao Holkar to gain
·control over the valley. In Central India, these two military leaders
alternately held the pre-eminency. Mahadji Scindia utilised the
fiction of his sovereignty created by the Treaty of Salbai in 1781
A.D. to gain his supremacy. By 1792 A.D. be had established bis
E
ascendancy and his power in Northern India reached its meridian
splendour.

• During this turbulant period, the Harda Handia tract passed
through several hands. There is not much history attaching to it.(2)
F
It appears that between 1769 and 1782 A.D., Rudraji Khunderao
~ was the Amil ?r Governor of the Harda Handia tract. Between
·· 1782 and 1789 A.D. he was succeeded in that office by Unna
Sahib. From 1790 to 1796 A.D. Daulatrao Scindia made his
servant Jaswantrao Sewajee the Amil or Kamavisdar of the Harda
Handia tract. It appears that the Peshwas were successful in G
installing the appellants' ancestor Krishna Rao Ramchandra

(I) Imperial Gazetteer of India, Vol. 13, 1908 p. 181, 182.
(2) Sir Charles Elliot : Report on the Land Revenue System of the Dist- H
ti\;t of fl:oshan~abad, p. 38.
744 SUPllEMB COUllT llEPOllTS (1982) 3 S.C.ll.

A as his Amil from. 1797 .to 1799 A.D., but there was a break in '
1800 A.D. In 1800 A.O., Balaji Chimanjee was the Gov~rnor. '
Between 1801 A.D. and 1802 A.D.1 the Scindia's servant Jaswant-
rao Sewajee again became his Governor.'( 1). The reason for the
change is apparent. In 1801 A.D. Jaswantrao Holkar appears to
have burnt and plundered Harda but in 1803 A.D. Daulatrao
B Scindia halted at Handia for the whole rainy season. In the same
year i.e. in 1803 A.D. the territory was ceded by the Peshwa to the
Scindia arid called by him as the Panch Mahal.

Viewed in this liistorical perspective, the appellants' preten-
c s.ions that their ancestors acquired the attributes of sovereignty
in relation to the Jagir of Timarni, can hardly be accepted. It
appears 'that the two of the ancestors of the appellants Naroo
Bulla! and his brother Ramchandra Bullal's grandson Madhavrao
presented themselves at the court of the Peshwa 'Madhavrao after
having lost their position and power as sur-mandloi and sur-
D kanungo in Sarkar Handia and the Peshwa by the sanad of 1777
A.D. created them the Jagirdar of Timarni with permission to keep
their gadhi at Timarni. It recites that the Peshwas being pleased'
with their loyal services Md granted to them watans in Handia
Sarkar and that they had renovated the gadhi i.e. fort at Timarni
) which was lying in a dilapidated state, and it was felt that there
E should be ~trong fortress for their use as a residence aq<I therefore
they were t:ven the inam of village Timarni together with the
gadhi with sur-deshmukhi in perpetuity. As already stated, the
appellants' ncestor Krishnarao Ramachandra became the Amil •
or Governor of the Peshwa between I 797 and 1799' but he was
F again replaced by Da\llatrao Scindia's servant Jaswantrao Sewajee
from 1801 to 1802. Thereafter, the Harda Handia passed under , . /
the control of the Scindias. ·. ,,..,,

Much stress is however laid on the two sanads of 1798
1800 A.D. issued by the Peshwa Bajirao II for the submission that
G the ancestors of the appellants as Jagirdars of Timarni had
acquired the status of a feudatory . chief in relation thereto. We
are afraid the contention cannot be accepied. By 1797lA.D. the

H (I) Sir Charles Elliot : Report on the Land Revenue Systems of the Dist•
. rict of Hoshangabad, Central Provinces : 1865, p. 38 · ·
SARDAR cioVlNDARAO v. M.P. STATS (Sen, J.) . 145
•
Scindias had made an inroad into the Harda Handia tract and A
evidently the appellants'" ancestors found it difficult to administer
the ternitory. The· s~ad of 1798 A.O. issued_ by the Peshwa
Bajirao II permitted them to maintain Shibandi irregular soldiery•
and sipahis equipped with chapdas (breast plates) armed with
weapons~ for making recovery of taxes and cesses,. but the grant
was with' the condition that in both the mahals the irregular soldiery B
in any case .should not exceed 100 in number without permission.
This only showed the grant ~f permission to keep a chowkidari
fo~ce for collection of revenue. ·The subsequent sanad of 1800 ·
A.O. contains a recital that the ancestors of the appellants presen-
ted themselves at the court of the Peshwa Bajirao II and complai-
ned that the Scindia had deployed his own officers in Sarkar
c
Handia and creaicd several muafidars, inamdars and saranjamis
who were creating .obstructions· to the enjoyment of their rights
and· on their protest they bad been ordered to get a confirmatory
letter from the Peshwa.
D
After the sovereignty had passed to th~ Scindias, Daulatrao
Scindia by the two sanads of· l.802 and 1804 A.O. described the
appellants' ancestors as sur-mandloi and sur-kanungo and granted
·them an· inam of villages· Piplia and Bhaili as · Nankar by way
of maintenance, in recognition of t!Jeif loyal seryices:
' ~
E
;
The tenor, of all these sanads clearly shows th!lt the ancestors
of the appellants were nothing mote than the Jagirdars of Timarni
comprising qf Timarni and four · other villages viz. Piplia, Bhaili,
Samarda, and Underkuch, and that they had never attained ihe status
of a feudatory or'a tributary Ruling -Chief under the sovereignty of
t.he PeshWas or the Scindias. F

After the power of the Scindias wa~ completely destroyed by
the Britisli, Daulatrao Scindia signed the treaty of Sarje ,-\njengaotl
on December 3,0, 18.03 by which he was ··obliged io give up his
possessions between the Jamuna and the Ganges etc. i.e. including G
'the Hard a Han di a tract known as ihe Pan ch Mahals, and soon
tllereafter by the t,reaty of Burhanpur signed on February, 27,
, 1804 he agreed to maintain a subsidiary force of the. British. to be
paid for out of the revenues of the te1ritory ceded b)' him. In 1844
the Barda Handia tract was mad.e over by the Scindia in part -pay- ff'
. men'! for the Gwalior contingent and in 1860 it wa.s permanently
transferred and became British territory . ,
146 SUPREME COUU REPORTS 11982) 3 s.c.k.
r A During the period of management of the territory by the British, '
the jagir of Timarni held by the ancestors of the appellants was
continued at the request of the Scindia as would be clear from tbe
• following letter from S~cretary to the Government of No!th-Western
Provinces io the Secretary to the Southern Board of Revenue,
North-Western Provinces dated July 24, 1860, which is in these
8 terms:

"I am directed to acknowledge the receipt of your
letter No. 564, dated the 4th instant, submitting copies of
a corresP,ondence, relative to the Temurnee Jageer, situated
c in the Pergunah of Harda in Hoshaogabad and held by the
Bhooskutta, Kishen Row Madho, with the Boards recom-
mendation, that the Jageer may be continued rent free in
perpetuity.to the, family of the present incumbent, in' com-
a
pliance with request to that effect made by the Gwalfor
Durbar, by whom it was originally granted.
0
2. In reply I am desired to intimate that the Lieutenant
Governor is of opinion that, in a matter of this kind
/
this Government is to a certain extent bound to
I
confirm to the wishes of Maharaja Scindia, the
country in which the rent free holding is situated
E being not assigned-and not ceded to the British. ·

3. As Maharaja·Scindia, had expressed a wish that the
Jageer of Timurnee should be continued rent ·free in '
perpetuity to the Bhooskutta and as perpetuation
seems to be in accordance with the 2nd of the revised ,.
F
rules for Barda 'Handia, dated 30th May 1834. His
Honour has· been pleased to confirm the exemption of /
the Jageer in question from demand ·of revenue in < · ,
perpetuity."

On December 12, 1860, the Scindia ceded this territory to the
G
British Government by a treaty of which Art. 3 is as follows : "The
Maharaja transfers to the British Government in full sovereignty the
. wh1Jle of His Highness possession in the Pancli Mahals and to ~he
south of the Fiver Nar0ada also Pargana Kumghar on dfe Betwa
.H river on. the following conditions : (1) That for the lands transferred
by His Highness, the British Gove.rnment shall give in exchange
)ands of equ.a! v;ilu~ ~~l~u.l11teQ qq l)o!li skies on the pre~~ll! 11ross
. SA!.DAR OOVINDRAO v. M.P. STATB (Sen, J.) 747
revenue ..... (3) That each Government shall respect the conditions A
• of exisiting leases until their expiry, and that in order that this may
·be made clear to all concerned, each Government .shall give to its
. new subjects leases for the same terms of years and on the same
conditions as those which they at present enjoy. (4) That each
Government shall give to its new subjects sanads in perpetuity for the
rent-free lands-the jagirs the perquisites and the hereditary claims B
i.e. haqs and watans) which they enjoy at present under the other
Government."

- ../
..__,--/
After the cession of the territory by the Scindia in 1860, the
Govetnment set it~elf· to inquire what were the estates transferred
and what were the tenures. of their new subjects. This was necessary,
first of all, becau8e as land of equal value elsewhere was to be ceded
to the SciJJdia, it was necessary to note the exact value of what had
c
been taken over, and also because undoubtedly the Government
wished to give effect to the terms of the treaty above quoted and in
particular to .the fourtli bead of cl. 3. There was Jong and detailed.
inquiry by the Government as to the precise position of the Jagirdar D
of Timarni. The inquiry dragged on for some years, but after a full
investigation the Secretary to'
the Chief Commissioner of\ the Central
"
Provinces by his Jetter dated March 4, 1865 conveyed'tbe decision of
tile Governor General-in-Council to the effect :

"The Governor·Geueral in-Council has been pleased to
rule on the Chief Commissioner's 'recommendations that
with the exception of the Chief, the Chief .of Makrai, all
the Zamindars are to be regarded and treated as ordinary

-
--~
British subject.
F,
So far as the Chief Commissioner is aware there is
nothing in the past history or present circumstances of any
of the Pargunna Officials or Jamindars of Nemar which
' would in any way be entitled to exercise their estates any
degree.of sovereign power.''
' .
G
It would thus appear that the Briti~h Government never
reco~oised the appellants' ancestor Krishnarao Madho, who like all
other Zamindars and Jagirdars in the Central Provinces, were fayin~
claim to be recognised as a chieftain, to be a Ruling Chief.
H
After a soeverigo state has acquired territory, either by con-
quest or by cession under'treaty or by th~ o~upatioq. qf t~rritory
I

748 SUPREME COURT ill!roRTS {I i)82) 3 S.C.R.

theretofore unoccupied by the recognized Ruler o.r otherwise, an , Y .
i.nhabitant of a territory can enforce in the municipal Courts only· •
such proprietary rights a·s the sovereign has conferred or recognized.·
Even if a treaty of cession . stipulates that certain inhabitants shall
enjoy certain rights, that gives them no rig)1t which they can so
· enforce. The meaning of a general statement. in a proclamation or a
(re~ty that existing rights would. be recogn\sed is that the Govern- .
ment will recognize such right; as upon investigation it finds existed.
The Government does not thereby renounce its right to recognize
only. such titles as it considers should be recO'gnized nor confer upon
the municipal courts any powers to adjudicate in the. matter. Tbe
c principle is so well-settled that it is not necessary to burMn the
judgment with many citations.~

• In Vajesingji Joravarsingji & Ors. v. Secretary of State for
Indra· in Council l'l Lord Dunedin in a somewhat similar claim of
a taluqdar of the Pan ch Mahal.s which was in the ~ominion of the
Scindia ceded to the British Government by the treaty dated
December 12, 1860, negatived the clahn of the. taluqdar to proprie·
tary rights qbservlng :

"When a territory is acquired by a sovereign state for.
the first time that is an act of state. It matters not how the
. E acquisition has been·. brought about. It may be by con:
quest, it may be by cession following on treaty. it may be
;• by occupation of territory hitherto unoccupied by a recog-
nized ruler. In all cases the resnlt is the same. Any in·
habitant o'f the territory can make good in t.he municipal
courts established by the new sovereign only such rights as
that sovereign has, through his, officers, recognized. Such
tights as he hac! under the rule of predecessors avail him
nothing. Nay~ote, even if in a treaty of cession it is
stipulated that certain inhabitants should enjoy certain
rights, that does not give a title to those inhabitants to
enforce these stipulations in the municipal courts. The right
G to enfor<;e remaiqs only with the high contracting pariies.
Tliis is made quite cl.ear by Lor<! Atkinson when, citing the
Pongoland case of Cook v. Sprigg L.R. 42 IA 229, 268 he
says : "It was held that the annexation of territory/made
a)1 'act of state and that any obligation assured under the
II
\l} L.R, (1923-24J' 51 !A 3.571
sAii.DAii ooviNDttAo v. i.i.i>. STATE (Sen, J.) 749 '

• treaty with· the ceding state either to the sovereign or the A
individuals is not one wb1ch municipal Courts are autho·
rize<Yto enforce.''

The burden of proving that after cessatio.n of the. territory by
the Scindiils to the British by the treaty of December 12, 1860 the
B. titish Goyernment acknowledged or recognize4 the existence of any 8
Mverei~rlghts with the ancestors of the appellants w~s upon them
and that burden they have f)liled to discharge. ·

""" / The historical material on which reliance is placed is not of
....- ~' much legal significance. {n the Central Provinces, the Zamindari
or Jagirdari estates had nothing to do with Revenue-farming. They ·
were simply the estates of chiefs or \barons of the old Gond king·
doms. ·when these kingdoms were conque;ed by the Mara\has,
the main portions became the Khalsa, or directly managed lands;
of the conquerors. ·The old, 'baronial'. territories being in the
· hills on the outskirts of the Maratha domain, were not prdductive D
.of milch revenue; they were therefore iet alone, the chiefs being
made to pay a· moderate tribute. T4is position was maintained
)lllder the .British Governm.e11t. The ·estates. were subjected 'to a
general kind of Revenue Settfement,
~ .
which
-
varied in
. .form (and in.
•' '

degree of detail) in different distJicts, and according 'to the rank and
circumstances of the chief or landlord.(1) E
i The Settlement of 1863 by Sir Richard Temple, Chief Commis·
sioner of .€entral Provinces recognised the Mlllg11zafs as virt11aliy
• landlords. The recognition of proprietary rights was absolute and
- unreserved. It was not the creation of a new. right, but the -recog·

'
.-~ nition, by the Government, of the state of things which had existM
' - in practice. The principle so clearly established fn'the· 'Settleinent
··of 1863 was subsequently departed from and al\hougli the Malguza:rs
were treated to be proprietors and .they became illere intermediaries
to whom the Government
.. looked for collection
' of land revenue.

.. The historical ~ateriai .t>~/aining to the pe~iod ' from
I
' 1844,' t<l 189QA.D. when the Scipdia. had' ceded the territory
to the British and the period ihereafier i.~. the perf6d frpin 1860
til~tbe settlement of t~e Hoshangabad :District fo 1865 i§ of no

(I) Ji.H. Baden-Powell-A' Short Account of the Land Ii.evenue and its
Administration in British India 1907, at pp.112.lf3. · -
•

·sul>ui.ts col.Jilt kiit>ollti iI9A~t 1 s.e.&.
r
·A y
legal consequence. They are undoubtedly historical documents of
great importance but are not sufficient to form a basis for the
conclusion that the. ancestors of the appellants were the Ruling
Chiefs . qf Timarni. First of these was the letter of Lt. Col.
Sir W.H. Sleeman, Agent to the Governor General, dated· June 3,
B 1847 treating the Jagirdar of Timarni at. par with the Chief of
MakraFstf¥'1)y which he ordered that there should not be any ··..;
interference with the revenue management of the Makrai and
Timarni estates and all questions relating to transfer of leases,
suits for rents, ejectments etc. should be left· to the Chiefs as
hithertofore. This was a letter written when the territory was
G placed under the Deputy Commi&sioner of Hoshangabad subject
to the control of Agent to the Governo1 General. Next ·is a letter
from the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshangabad dated July 16, 1860
on a complaint by the kiledar. of the Bhuskutes direeting ·the Settle·
ment-Officet that he would cause the survey, and if any commenced,
to be <liscotitinued, "as we cannot in any way interfere with the
D Bhuskute Jagir". We have already referred to the important letter
dated July 24, 1860 from the Secretary to the Government, North·
western Provinces to the Secretary to the Southern Board . of
Revenue, North-Western Provinces, which· brings out the real·
status of the ancestors of the appellants as a Jagirdar. "

Jn Sir Richard Temple's "Report on the Zamindaris
and other petty Chieftains in the Central Provinces" submitted
by him to the Government of India in 1863, there is a letter by .l
Hector Mackenzie, Secretary to the Chief Commissioner of the ,,
Central Provinces addressed to the Government of India dated
F oeiober 31, ,1863. He traced the history of the aneestors ...-
of the appellapts- and then went on to say that they ruled /'. ~ /'
over the territ()ry. . We think it necessary
.
to extract the relevan~
" - I
portion thereof which. runs as follows:

"The title of Bhooscutta was given by the Peshwa to
G . officers sent to clear jungles and cultivate waste lands, and
· one of these the founder of the family under notice was· sent
to Hurda where he brought much land unCler cultivation,
and was high officer ··

ff It appears-that in Peshwa's lime the BhooSc:utta 'rule(j'
in Hurdah, and when Scindia obtained possession he gave
. , ..
§ARbAll G0VINbRA6 v. M.i>. STATE (:S-en, J,\ ?S)
a grant of five villages, Timumi, Bbaili, Oondrakutcb, A
Samurdha, and Tupcurn to the family in perpetuity; and
until the cession of iiurdab to the British Government, the
Bhooscutta was unqer the supervision ;or the Political Agent
at· Bhopal (Sehore) and quite· independent.
. B
When Hurdah was ceded, Timurni was placed under
the Deputy Commissioner of Hoshangabad, .subject to the 1
Commissioner of these territories, .and the late Commissio-
ner and Agent to lhe Governor General Sir W. Sleeman,
ordered that the Bhooscutta should not be interf~red with
in any way except.in heavy criminal cases an.d· such is still
the practice:"
c
;.. His subsequent lettbr to th'i Commissioner Saugar Division dated·
December 2, 1863 reads :

"I am directed by the officiating Chief Commissioner to
inform you, that the Timurnee Estate being held in Zamin·
daree ten'bre, i.e. it is a petty chieftaincy the villages
comprised in it need no~ be measured by the .settlement
Officer, nor should any cesses be levied. This Estate forms
one of three Muckrai; .Timurnee, Pitera, Jn your Divisions
which are petty Chieftaincies and in respect o( which the
E
orders of the Government have been solicited jn detail,
when they are received they will be communicated."

Then there is the letter from the Settlement Commissioner,
Central Provinces to the Settlement 'officer, Ho~hangabad date.d
August 4, 1865 directing him to take the necessary measures F
for completing · the 17gular settlement of the Timarni jagir
with all practical despatch. It was .mentioned that although the
' jagir bad been: released in perpetuity, the chief object of making
the •uessment was •io fix the Jamas on which the percentage due
on ~ccount of cesses and other taxes ~ere to be fixed. This was
. followed by a letter from the officiating settlement Officer to the G
apelf~11ts' aq~stor . Krisbtiarao Madho dated August 19, 1865
informing liim that there should be no apprehension about the
settlement operation in progress, that the object of the Government
was only to ascertain the area and capacity of the :Jllages.
.H
Sir Charles Elliot's Settlement Report of the Hoshangabad
District of 1865 records that Naroo B11llal and Ramcband.ra ~ull\11
sui>REMS coiJRt iuii>ol:rs (i982j 3s.c.a.
A' made sur- mandloi and sur-kaimngo by' the Peshwa of the whole
22 paraganas of the Handia Sarkar i.e. they were paragana officials. •
He went on to observe that ,the appellants' ancestor Krishenarao
Madf10 was a "semi-dependent" jagirdar of Timarni comprising of
five villages, bUt- as regards rest of his holdings a service muafidar.{'J
He states that all of ·.these villages were given 'to . the appellants'
Jl ancestors rent-free in perpetuity to meet expenses incurred for the
office of sur-mandloi and sur-kanungo which t!ie Peshwa baa
bestowed on him .

. After ii full investigation into title, the Governor General ·'---- •
c in Council came to a decision that all Zamindars in the Central ---..
Provinces, including the ancestors of the appellants, had to.be
regarded and treated as ordinary British subjects. .A

It is abundantly clear from whl!t has been set forth above
that although the Government officials took great pains to determine
O what 'was ~the positio'n of the jagirdar of Timarni, the Government.
ultimately came to the 9onclusion that be held the status of an
ordinary British subject and was nota Feudatory Chief exercising .
any sovereign powers.

ln Kunwarlal Singh v. Provincial Government, Central Provinces
E & Berar,('} similar, contentions were raised. In that case, the
plaintiffs who "were the Zamindars of Kamtha, Wadad and Deori
Kishori known as Wainganga Zamindars and that of Palasgarh 'J,

governed by what was known as the Chanda Patent, challenged the
validity of .the Central Provinces and Berar Revision of the Land
•
Revenue of Estates Act, 1939 which provided for an increase in the
F
levy of takoli as beyond the legislative competence of the then
Provincial Llgislature since it amounted to acquisition of Jarid
withput payment of compensation-. They claimed that they' enjoyed
sovereign or quasi-sovereign status. and takoli was in the nature of
·a tribute. Both the contentions were rejected. It was held by
Vivian Bose,' ). that tako/i was land revenue ~nd that the Zamin-
dars were nothing more than ordinary British subjects and there.fore
liable to pay land revenue like any other subject.

(1) Sir Charles Elliot: Report on the Land Revenue System.of.the Distrlct
H of Hoshangabad, Central Provinces : 1865. p. 198
(2) I.L.R. (1944) Nagpur 18\1 , , .
SARf>Ak cmviNbaAo v. l.i.P. sTATB (Sen, J.\ .7sa
The Zamindars of Central Provinces like the appellants here
• had twice carried th~ matter right upto the Privy Couqcil in asser-
tion of their claim that they· were Feudatory Chiefs; but the Judicial
Committee clasS'Cd them as ordiQJry British subjects. In Bir Bikram
Deo v. Secreiary of State for India in Council(') the Privy Council ·
was dealing with the -Zamindars in the Raipur [)istrict of the Central
Provinces. · Their status was the same as that of Jhe, Wainganga 8
Zamindars and they were governed by what was known as the
Chanda Patent, which gave them a status higher than that of
other Zamindars. In Marland Rao v. Malhar Rao,(') the Judlcial
Committee was dealing with Kampta za_mindari in Waingana a'nd the.
___claim was that the estate was in the nature of a Raj. In both the•
cases, 'reliance was placed on certain historical ma1erial, including c
Sir Richard Temple's "Report on the Zamindaris and. other Petty
Chieftains in the Central Provinces" where he described Wainganga
Zamindars governed by the Chanda Patent; generally as "Dependent
'Chiefs".· The Judicial_ Committee while rejecting the contention
thafthe zamindars were petty Chieftain liaving attributes of ~ove
reignty, observed :

"It appears, moreover, from Sir Reginald. Craddoc)£'s
note, that after a good deal of correspondence between
Sir R. Temple, as Chief Commissioner of the C~ntral Pro·
vinces, and the Government of India, it was finally decided E
that only holders of certain estates should be recognized as
feudatories, and all others as ordil)ary subjects. Sanads
were granted the former,. expressly mentioning that the
succession was in their case to be a single heir. Th~i provi-
sion was omitted in the case of sanads to most Zamindars
of the second class, including the Amgaon , zamil)dar, F
though with regard to some others like Chanda that' provi-
sion was'expresSly attached." .

While coming to that conclusion, the Judicial Committee. observed
that:
G
"There are passages here and there both in Sir Richard
Jenkins report and Sir R. Temple's report which speaks of
all the8e zamindaris indiscriminately as chiefs or chieftains, .

(1) L.R. (1911-12), 39 J.A. 31.
(2) L:R. (1927-28) 551,A. 4S.
. sUPREMil coullT ltEPoRtS {1982J j s.C.11..
A but that ............ they could possibly be classed category of
sovereign or semi-sovereign chiefs whose possessions were •
necessarily impartible".

In Vajesingji Joravarsingji & Ors. v. Secretary of State for
India in Council (supra), Lord Dunedin while dealing with the his-
torical material had said : ·

"The view of the Officials of the Government as to
that wquld intluence .them to make up their minds as to
what title should be given or recognized, but even then, as
.• far as their Lordships are concerned, it is what th~y did
c after investigation, not what they thought at investigation,
that is matter of moment."

fo conclusion, it must be held that the appellants were not
entitled to any money or pension under cl. (ii) of sub-s. (3) of s. 5
of the Central Provinces and Berar Revocation of Land Revenue
D Exemptions Act, 1948, not being "the descendants of a fo~mer
Ruling Chief" in terms of that section.

The result therefore is that appeal must fail and is dismissed
with costs.

P.B.R. Appeal dismissed.

(