Judgement Appeal from a decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner (March 27, 1906) modifying a decree of the Deputy Commissioner of Sitapur (September 9, 1905). The question decided was as to the true construction of certain rules made by the British Indian Association. Taluqa Akbarpur, of which the appellant is taluqdar, was confiscated by the proclamation of March 15, 1858. At the second summary settlement it was settled with one Fazl Ali Khan, the letter of October 10, 1859, conferring on him an absolute proprietary estate. The result was to vest in him, as in other holders of settlements so made, the interests possessed by persons who previous to the confiscation held a village in a taluqa so settled, by way of maintenance or otherwise. The hardship thus inflicted was remedied by compromise with the taluqdars. Their association, known as the British Indian Association, framed rules in the year 1869 in regard to claims thus arising out of confiscation and regrant, and these rules obtained the sanction of Government; claims were heard and disposed of by certain members of the association acting as arbitrators, and the awards made by them were given the force of judicial decrees by s. 30 of Act I. of 1869. One of the villages in the Akbarpur taluqa is Daryapur. Prior to confiscation it was held in right of maintenance by Mehdi Ali Khan, the brother of Fazl Ali Khan, the taluqdar. In the year 1869 Mehdi Ali Khan advanced his claims to maintenance before the association; on June 25, 1869, an award was made, which was accepted on June 27, 1869, by a petition of compromise, and confirmed by the Financial Commissioner. By that award Mehdi Ali Khan was granted the village of Daryapur and an allowance of Rs.700 per annum. His holding of the village was on the terms provided by the rules of the association, and the particular rule applicable to him was as follows “First persons whose land was always included in the taluka, and who never got separate kabuliats. This class will remain in possession of what they actually had at annexation rent free during their lives, but subject to payment in the second generation of 25 per cent. to the talukdar, in the third 50 per cent. ; and will not have transferable rights. Such persons may pay the Government revenue plus 10 per cent. This class will remain in possession of what they actually had at annexation rent free during their lives, but subject to payment in the second generation of 25 per cent. to the talukdar, in the third 50 per cent. ; and will not have transferable rights. Such persons may pay the Government revenue plus 10 per cent. to the talukdar, and they will have heritable rights." Mehdi Ali Khan died on November 21, 1881, and was succeeded by his daughter, Abadi Begam. She died in February, 1902, and was succeeded by her son, the respondent. On October 5, 1893, the Court of Wards, representing the appellant, obtained a decree from the Rent Courts against Abadi Begam for the Government revenue payable for the said villages. She denied her liability to pay and sued in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kheri to obtain a judicial declaration of her rights in the village. The suit was finally disposed of by a judgment of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh, dated May 9, 1898, the decree being in the folio wing terms— "It is hereby declared that Abadi Begam, the plaintiff, succeeds to the rights of Mehdi Ali Khan, in village Daryapur, subject to the payment of one half of the Government revenue plus 10 per cent. talukdari dues." The Court of Wards, acting thereon, sued in the Rent Court on August 12, 1899, to recover from Abadi Begam arrears of rent, one half the Government revenue plus 10 per cent. on the whole Government revenue, and a final judgment of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh, dated June 25, 1900, decided that Abadi Begam was liable to pay 10 per cent. on the whole Government revenue and also certain rates and cesses. The taluqa was released from the management of the Court of Wards on May 9, 1904, and on June 19, 1905, the appellant brought the suit in which this appeal arose in the Court of the Deputy Commissioner of Sitapur. The plaint claimed to recover from the respondent, as arrears of rent up to February, 1902, the date of Abadi Begams death, not one half of the Government revenue plus 10 per cent. plus rates and cesses, but 25 per cent. The plaint claimed to recover from the respondent, as arrears of rent up to February, 1902, the date of Abadi Begams death, not one half of the Government revenue plus 10 per cent. plus rates and cesses, but 25 per cent. of the gross rental of the said village plus 10 per cent of the Government revenue plus rates and cesses; and similarly as and from the date of Abadi Begams death to recover, not the Government revenue, but one half of the gross rental together with the said allowance, rates, and cesses. The respondent pleaded that he was only liable to pay one half the Government revenue plus 10 per cent. thereon, as decided by the Court of the Judicial Commissioner on May 9, 1898, and he further claimed to set off against the rent the sum of Rs.700 per annum awarded as maintenance to Mehdi Ali Khan. Both Courts decided that since the death of Abadi Begam the appellant was entitled to the whole Government revenue plus the rates and cesses, the Appellate Court holding that he was also entitled to recover the 10 per cent. malikana as claimed. Both Courts also held that he was not entitled to repudiate in a Rent Court a set-off which had been in fact allowed by the Court of Wards against rent. Ross, for the appellant, contended that on the true construction of the rules of the British Indian Association the appellant was entitled since Abadis death to 50 per cent. of the rental or gross income of the village and was not limited to the amount which the Government was willing to accept as Government revenue. The words in the rule translated as Government revenue really meant the amount payable to the taluqdar. His objection also to the set-off pleaded by the respondent should have been allowed entirely and not overruled as regards so much as had been allowed by the Court of Wards. It was within the power of a Kent Court to decide that payments on account of maintenance by the Court of Wards were not justifiable and were not to be treated as deductions from the rents payable. It was within the power of a Kent Court to decide that payments on account of maintenance by the Court of Wards were not justifiable and were not to be treated as deductions from the rents payable. De Gruyther, K.C., and Kyffin, for the respondent, contended that the Courts below had rightly construed the rules, and that the appellants claim must be limited to the recovery of the amount fixed for Government revenue and could not be calculated in reference to the gross rental. A set-off allowed in fact by the Court of Wards could not be challenged in the Rent Court. Reference was made to Sykes Compendium of Taluqdari Law, p. 285, par. 3 of letter of October 10, 1859, scheduled to Act I. of 1869, and p. 810, rule 7, of the rules scheduled to Oudh Sub-settlement Act, 1866, and an unreported judgment of March 10, 1898, in Japattar Singh v. Ram Rutter Lal as to the meaning of the word " rent." Ross in reply. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD SHAW OF DUNFERMLINE. The question between these parties can be stated in short compass. The plaintiff (appellant) is taluqdar of Akbarpur, within which is included the village of Daryapur. As such taluqdar he holds superior proprietary rights in the village. The defendant (respondent) holds, under the " provision for maintenance " which falls to be construed, the sub-proprietary rights in the village. His mother, Abadi Begam, enjoyed such provision for maintenance, being a sub-proprietor in the second generation. The defendant holds similar rights, being a sub-proprietor in the third generation. The payments due from these sub-proprietors to the taluqdar are, it is admitted, governed by the terms of the provision for maintenance. The document so falling to be construed is of some interest. It is a translation by the Court translator of " Copy of Rules of Practice, framed by the British Indian Association with regard to suits instituted and decrees passed therein," dated September 25, 1867. The document so falling to be construed is of some interest. It is a translation by the Court translator of " Copy of Rules of Practice, framed by the British Indian Association with regard to suits instituted and decrees passed therein," dated September 25, 1867. Under it " the talukdars agree to make the following provisions for the maintenance of their relatives pro-vided that their doing so be sanctioned by the Government and be considered as a final disposal of the question in the classes of cases detailed below." The officiating Chief Commissioner at Fyzabad, dealing with its terms, states " I think they are in every way as liberal as we could expect to obtain for the relatives of the talukdar." It is plain that the settlement of the very important questions of the title to and interest in the land of this portion of India was thus put upon a substantial and permanent foundation, and the decision of the questions in this case, involving a construction of this portion of these rules of practice framed by the British Indian Association, has been represented to their Lordships as of general importance. The provision for maintenance, which it is agreed by the parties applies and falls to be construed, is, in the language of the translation, as follows " This class will remain in possession of what they actually had at annexation vent free during their lifetime, but subject to payment in the second generation of 25 per cent. to the talukdar, and in the third 50 per cent., and will not have transferable rights. If such persons pay the Government revenue, plus 10 per cent. to the talukdar, they will have heritable rights in addition." It is, of course, fundamental to ascertain what is the bulk sum out of which these percentages are to be struck. The Government revenue is 50 per cent. of such bulk sum. For this and its regular payment the taluqdar is responsible. The Government valuation is made at intervals of thirty years and is struck, not, of course, upon the actual receipts for a particular year, but upon an assumed rental which represents the fair average of the taluqdars annual receipts. A fixed datum is thus arrived at for the payment of Government revenue. The Government valuation is made at intervals of thirty years and is struck, not, of course, upon the actual receipts for a particular year, but upon an assumed rental which represents the fair average of the taluqdars annual receipts. A fixed datum is thus arrived at for the payment of Government revenue. From the documents produced in this case it is manifest that the actual receipts of rental vary greatly from year to year, and that, were the Government revenue to be fixed upon this varying basis, the greatest difficulties would emerge in administration. And, so far as the taluqdars are concerned, it appears to be much in their interest that the charges upon their property [should be upon a fixed basis. If the provisions for maintenance of relatives agreed to by the taluqdars and sanctioned by the British Indian Association are upon the same fixed basis, then all parties, including relatives, the taluqdars, and the Government, can understand year after year, and be able to forecast, their exact financial position. Taking it, accordingly, that the Government revenue is 50 per cent. of the assumed rental, that the provision for maintenance of relatives in the second generation is the enjoyment of the property subject to a payment of 25 per cent. of the assumed rental to the taluqdar, and that in the third generation the enjoyment of the property is subject to a payment of 50 per cent. to the taluqdar, the result would simply be that in the third generation the sub-proprietors in actual possession would relieve the taluqdar of the Government revenue, which is the very same sum, namely, 50 per cent. of the assumed rental. They would, however, according to the rule, as applicable to a provision for maintenance of a perpetual or heritable character, pay to the taluqdar an additional sum of 10 per cent. As the payments to the taluqdar might not be regular, and, in any view, the taluqdars responsibility to the Government is full and direct, whether he received such payments or not, this 10 per cent. may be accounted for as a reasonable commission or insurance, and it is accordingly sanctioned by the rules of the British Indian Association under construction, as well as by the rules regarding sub-settlements and other subordinate rights of property in Oudh scheduled to Act No. 26 of 1866. may be accounted for as a reasonable commission or insurance, and it is accordingly sanctioned by the rules of the British Indian Association under construction, as well as by the rules regarding sub-settlements and other subordinate rights of property in Oudh scheduled to Act No. 26 of 1866. The whole of the above depends on the fundamental bulk figure being the assumed rental as described, and, if that bulk figure be so treated, it does not appear to their Lordships that there is much left to construe in the rule. The taluqdar, the plaintiff (appellant) in the present case, however, maintains that what ought to be paid by the relatives of the second and third generations is not 25 per cent. and 50 per cent. respectively of the bulk figure mentioned, but of the actual rent for the particular years ; and not merely of the rents as received or ingathered for those years, but of the amount of the rents demandable, whether received or not. Certain contentions were put forward as to an alleged mistranslation of one clause in the rule. That clause reads " If such persons pay the Government revenue, plus 10 per cent. to the taluqdar, they will have heritable rights in addition." It is said that the words translated " Government revenue " really mean any payment to a superior, such as the taluqdar, and that accordingly the translation should read " If such persons pay " (not the " Government revenue," but) " the amount due to the taluqdar, plus 10 per cent. to the taluqdar, they will have heritable rights." It is somewhat difficult to follow such an argument, and the proposed correction would appear to confuse rather than to clarify the clause. But it is not necessary, in their Lordships opinion, to make any separate pronouncement on that subject. The basis of the rule would, in any view, fall to be arrived at; and their Lordships have little doubt that the assumed rental which is used in fact for the Government purpose is, by the rule, meant to be used for maintenance purposes. The Court below, namely, the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh, has pronounced a decree upon this footing, and their Lordships are of opinion that the decree is sound. Their Lordships do not think that the claim of the taluqdar for a contribution of 25 per cent. The Court below, namely, the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh, has pronounced a decree upon this footing, and their Lordships are of opinion that the decree is sound. Their Lordships do not think that the claim of the taluqdar for a contribution of 25 per cent. and 50 per cent. respectively of the rents demanded for the years in question (plus 10 per cent. in the sense of the rule) can be sustained. Payments on this scale might conceivably far. exceed not only the Government revenue, but the entire receipts of rental actually obtained for particular years. The rights of the relatives in possession as sub-proprietors might thus be reduced to a shadow, and the provisions for these large classes of society rendered precarious. A construction which would bring about such a result is not, in their Lordships opinion, warranted on a sound reading of the terms of the maintenance provision. Another point was argued. It appears that the appellant, who during his minority was represented by the Court of Wards, objects to certain payments made by that Court on account of maintenance to the respondent. Their Lordships agree with the view taken by the Judicial Commissioner in his judgment of March 27, 1906, that these transactions cannot be opened up in this case; and, in their Lordships opinion, he rightly held that " it is not within the province of a Rent Court to determine whether the maintenance was or was not payable." Their Lordships will therefore humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed. The appellant must pay the costs of the appeal.