Judgement Appeal (No. 128 of 1918) by special leave from a judgment and decree (April 27, 1915) of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh reversing a decree (October 18, 1913) of the Subordinate Judge of Gonda. The deceased appellant who was the owner of a half share in the village of Kundarwa sued the 7 Law. Rep. 48 Ind. App. 267 ( 1920- 1921) Raja Mohammad Abul Hasan Khan V. Lachmi Narain 118 respondents (other than the first) claiming (1.) a declaration that the defendants were not under-proprietors of the village, (2.) a declaration that according to a settlement decree of January 30, 1871, the plaintiffs alone were entitled to alter the amount of rent to be paid by the defendants, and (3.) possession of the village and mesne profits. The defendants by their written statement pleaded that they and their ancestors had been under-proprietors since fasli 1209 (1802 A.D.) and relied on the settlement decree of 1871. A second plaintiff was joined pro forma and was the first-named respondent. The facts appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee. The Subordinate Judge delivered judgment in favour of the plaintiffs. He held that the settlement decree did not give the defendants any under-proprietary rights in the village, but only a right to 10 per cent, of the rental, and that that right did not entitle them to retain possession. Upon an appeal by the present respondents to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner it was conceded in argument on behalf of the present appellant, as it was before their Lordships, that he could not claim in the suit possession or mesne profits. The Court of the Judicial Commissioners came to the conclusion upon the terms of the settlement decree of 1871 that the defendants had under-proprietary rights. The learned judges said in the course of their judgment " It is important to notice that the decree contains a reference to circular No. 2 of 1861, and a perusal of that circular proves to us clearly that the Extra Assistant Commissioner must have decided and must have intended to decide that Sheo Ratan was an under-proprietor according to the provisions of that circular." They referred to the terms of the circular, more especially to para. 24, and said that there could be no doubt that the decree meant that Sheo Ratan had the status of an under-proprietor. 24, and said that there could be no doubt that the decree meant that Sheo Ratan had the status of an under-proprietor. They concluded by saying " It is argued that the precarious nature of the tenure which is to be implied from the grant to the taluqdar of power to alter the amount of the jama is inconsistent with any notion of under-proprietary right which connotes a fixity of tenure. But this power of the taluqdar was recognized by Mr. Wingfield (the settlement officer) as one of the incidents of birt tenure (see para. 22 of the circular), and he obviously did not consider that this incident was any obstacle to its being held that the birtiya was an under-proprietor provided the other necessary conditions were fulfilled. We are satisfied therefore that the settlement decree in this case conferred an under-proprietary right upon Sheo Ratan." A decree was accordingly made dismissing the suit. 1920. Nov. 12. De Gruyther K.C. and Parikh for the appellant. The settlement decree of 1871 did not give any under-proprietary right. It reserved to the taluqdar the right to offer new pattas at an increased rent, and conferred no " heritable and transferable right in land " as required by the definition of " under-proprietor" in the Oudh Rent Act (XXII. of 1886), s. 3. All that was given was a right to deduct or receive the dahyak. The grant purported to be a bankati birt which is different from a bai birt. The decision in Parmeshar Dat v. Mohammad Abul Hasan Khan covers this case. [Reference was also made to the Oudh Sub-Settlement Act (XXVI. of 1866) sch., r. 5, United Provinces Land Revenue Act (U. P. Act III. of 1901), s. 79, and Sykes Compendium of Taluqdari Law, pp. 173, 191, 289, 309.] Dube for the respondents, other than No. 1. The effect of the settlement decree of 1871 is that these respondents are under-proprietors. The terms of the Record of Rights Circular, No. 2 of 1861, clearly show that that was the intended effect of the decree. The respondents have heritable and transferable rights in the land. No objection is raised to an enhancement of the rent in 7 Law. Rep. 48 Ind. App. 267 ( 1920- 1921) Raja Mohammad Abul Hasan Khan V. Lachmi Narain 119 accordance with the prevailing rate for bankati. The respondents have heritable and transferable rights in the land. No objection is raised to an enhancement of the rent in 7 Law. Rep. 48 Ind. App. 267 ( 1920- 1921) Raja Mohammad Abul Hasan Khan V. Lachmi Narain 119 accordance with the prevailing rate for bankati. There is no authority drawing a distinction between bai birt and bankati birt tenure. On the other hand Sykes points out the distinction between bankati and bishunprit birt. In Parmeshar Dats Case (14 Oudh Cases, 335.) the settlement decree did not contain the words " upholding possession and occupation as an under-proprietor." The decision of the Board in Lal Sripat Singh v. Lal Basant Singh (( 1918) 22 Cal. W. N. 985 (J. C.).) covers this case. [Reference was also made to Raja Muhammad Muntaz Ali Khan v. Murad Bakhsh. (( 1907) 10 Oudh Cases, 318.)] Alternatively, the present case comes within s. 79 of the United Provinces and Oudh Revenue Act (U. P. III. of 1901), the respondents being " holders of heritable, non-transferable leases under a judicial decision." Parikh in reply referred to s. 19 of the Oudh Rent Act, 1886. March 16. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by MR. AMEER ALI. The suit, which has given rise to this appeal, was brought by the plaintiffs in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Gonda, in Oudh, on May 1, 1913, and relates to a village called Kundarwa, lying within the taluqa Birwa Mahnon, in the Gonda district, in which the first plaintiff owns a half share ; the second plaintiff, a resident of Lucknow, appears to have purchased at a sale in execution of a decree a part of the village in dispute. Why he has been joined in the suit as plaintiff does not clearly appear. The other half of the taluqa is owned by the taluqdar of Balrampur. The defendants hold the village Kundarwa under a birt grant created so long ago as 1802 by one Maharaj Kumar Madho Sing, who owned the property in those days. Later the taluqa came into the possession of a lady named Rani Sarfaraz Kunwar; on her death it devolved on her daughter, Birjraj Kunwar. On Birjraj Kunwars death somewhere in 1879 it passed into the hands of her husband, Achcha Ram. Later the taluqa came into the possession of a lady named Rani Sarfaraz Kunwar; on her death it devolved on her daughter, Birjraj Kunwar. On Birjraj Kunwars death somewhere in 1879 it passed into the hands of her husband, Achcha Ram. In 1888 half of the estate was purchased by the first plaintiffs father, Raja Kazim Hossain, whose title as purchaser was affirmed finally only in 1899 ; whilst the other half was acquired at or about the same time by the taluqdar of Balrampur. The patta under which the birt-holders obtained the village of Kundarwa is in the following terms " I have given the land of village Kundarwa to Pathak Guni Ram by way of birt. He is free to settle himself and others (therein) and to cultivate it himself or get it cultivated, year after year that is to say, he is free to have it cultivated and populated. He should pay the revenue to the sarkar at the rate prevalent in the taluqa and take the dasaundh at the rate prevalent in the taluqa. I have written this ; none should act against this." For the first year, the rent is fixed at Rs. 4, rising in the course of five years to Rs. 36. And then follows the clause relating to future rent " He [meaning the grantee] is to enjoy it free for five or six years. Thereafter at the rate for bankati prevalent in the taluqa." The character and incidents of these birt grants will be referred to more particularly in the course of this judgment. It is enough to say at this stage that the circular issued by the Chief Commissioner of Oudh in 1861 shows that so late as the early part of the nineteenth century large tracts of land in the Province were lying un-reclaimed and uncultivated, and the usual method for large proprietors was to let out the waste lands on favourable terms and security of tenure to tenants to bring them under cultivation. These grants were usually called birt bankati (as in the present case) or bantarashi, the names indicating the purpose for which they were made. The birtia, or birt-holder,had to cut down the forest, clear the land, build tanks and induct raiyats. The predecessors in title of the defendants remained admittedly in unmolested possession of the village for nearly seventy-three years. These grants were usually called birt bankati (as in the present case) or bantarashi, the names indicating the purpose for which they were made. The birtia, or birt-holder,had to cut down the forest, clear the land, build tanks and induct raiyats. The predecessors in title of the defendants remained admittedly in unmolested possession of the village for nearly seventy-three years. In 1869, in the course of what is called the first regular settlement in Oudh, they 7 Law. Rep. 48 Ind. App. 267 ( 1920- 1921) Raja Mohammad Abul Hasan Khan V. Lachmi Narain 120 applied for a direct settlement with them of the revenue assessed on their village. Their application was opposed on behalf of Sarfaraz Kunwar, who then held the taluqa. The case came for final disposal before the extra Assistant Commissioner of Gonda on January 30, 1871 ; the birt-holder was arrayed as plaintiff and the taluqdar as defendant. The taluqdar charged- the documents produced by the birt-holders to be forgeries. This was found to be untrue ; and the actual decision relative to the respective rights of the parties is in the following terms " Now the question whether the bankati birt is tantamount to the birt right or not remains to be dealt with. It is evident that when the birtdari dahyak dues are deducted all through, no extinction of the birt rights can take place on account of the decrease or increase in the amount of rental. In mortgage and sale birt the owners of villages generally enjoyed the power to assess rents, to make amendments in them, and to grant periodical leases in their districts and the dahyak dues have been estimated at 10 per cent. only. The plaintiff has all these qualities in him. In mortgage and sale birt the owners of villages generally enjoyed the power to assess rents, to make amendments in them, and to grant periodical leases in their districts and the dahyak dues have been estimated at 10 per cent. only. The plaintiff has all these qualities in him. For the above reasons it is ordered that a decree upholding possession and occupation as an under-proprietor be passed in favour of the plaintiff under the pro visions of Circular No. 2 of 1861 in respect of village Kundarwa No. 590, Pargana Gonda, subject to the condition that the taluqdar shall always have the power to renew the patta and to amend and to assess the jama according to the practice observed during the shahi times that the plaintiff having deducted only 10 per cent, dahyak dues, shall pay the balance of the jama proposed to the taluqdar that in case of refusal to take up the lease and the village being held under direct management, the plaintiff shall be deemed entitled to dahyak dues at 10 per cent, from the amount of gross rental, and that, having deducted his dahyak dues in both the seasons, he shall have the accounts adjusted at the end of the year." It is clear from this decree that the extra Assistant Commissioner found that the plaintiff in that case possessed all the powers ordinarily enjoyed by birt-holders of his class ; and he accordingly upheld the plaintiffs " possession and occupation as an under-proprietor," subject to the conditions set forth above. It is alleged by the plaintiffs in the present suit that there was a discontinuance in " the possession and occupation " of the birt-holders between 1875 and 1879, when they declined to take a patta on the rent assessed by the taluqdar. During this period, it is alleged, the village was let to some other people, the defendants receiving only the tenth of the rent received by the taluqdar, and that in 1880 the birt-holders again got possession under a new arrangement. These allegations are not admitted by the defendants ; they deny that they ever lost possession. No patta or kabuliat appears to have been produced to show what the new arrangement was. Anyhow, whatever its character, it has lasted a considerable time. These allegations are not admitted by the defendants ; they deny that they ever lost possession. No patta or kabuliat appears to have been produced to show what the new arrangement was. Anyhow, whatever its character, it has lasted a considerable time. In 1898 Achcha Ram, who had come into the possession of the taluqa on the death of his wife, Birjraj Kunwar, brought a suit against the defendants for ejectment and enhancement of rent. That suit failed ; the Judicial Commissioner dismissed the action on the ground that both reliefs were exclusively for the Revenue Courts to determine. In 1901 Raja Kazim Hossain Khan, the father of the first plaintiff, who had by that time become the owner by purchase of a half-share of the taluqa, brought a suit against the defendants in the Court of the Deputy Collector of Gonda for arrears of rent for the fasli years 1307 and 1308 ( 1900 and 1901), on the allegation that they held Kundarwa on a rental of Rs. 503.14.6 and that he was entitled to receive a moiety thereof. The defendants contended that the rent was payable as a whole and they could not be made separately liable for a share of the rent. They also alleged that their rent was Rs. 500, which they had been always willing to pay less their dahyak, the tenth, which they were entitled to deduct, and that Rs. 3.14.6 claimed by the plaintiff was an overcharge for rates. The Deputy Collector of Gonda, before whom the case came for trial, dealing first with the plea that 7 Law. Rep. 48 Ind. App. 267 ( 1920- 1921) Raja Mohammad Abul Hasan Khan V. Lachmi Narain 121 the defendants were not liable to pay the rent in halves, stated his view as to the status of the defendants in the following terms " They are not tenants ; nor are they ordinary thekadars ; rather they hold the land as under-proprietors, or inferior proprietors." In this view he overruled the birtias objection to being made liable to pay rent in halves. On the question of the rent he held (This and the three subsequent passages in square brack ets are abbreviations of the judgement as delivered.) [that Rs. 3.14.6 represented rates and could not be claimed in the suit, and that the jama was Rs. On the question of the rent he held (This and the three subsequent passages in square brack ets are abbreviations of the judgement as delivered.) [that Rs. 3.14.6 represented rates and could not be claimed in the suit, and that the jama was Rs. 500 ; he said that it appeared from a judgment in 1898 that the dahyak right to a 10 per cent, deduction had prevailed till that date, and he saw no reason why it should have ceased thereafter.] The decree of the Deputy Collector is dated December 23, 1901. The North-western Provinces and Oudh Land Revenue Act (III. of 1901) was enacted about this time, and under its provisions the revenue assessment of the Gonda District was taken in hand. In the course of the settlement proceedings relating to the Birwa Mahnon taluqa a claim was preferred for the assessment of rent in respect of the village of Kundarwa. Before the Settlement Officer the Balrampur Estate, as the owner of the half-share of the taluqa, was arrayed as plaintiff, whilst the birt-holders appeared as defendants. The Assistant Settlement Officer [held that there was no doubt that it was for the Settlement Court to assess the rent, and after saying that there was very little chance of enhancement in the value of Kundarwa, he affirmed the rent which was being paid— namely, Rs. 500 subject to Rs. 50 dahyak]. The taluqdar preferred an appeal from this order to the Settlement Officer ; and his order in respect of Kundarwa is in these terms " This is one of those unfortunate decrees of the last settlement which gave and took away rights in the same breath. The respondents were decreed possession of mauza Kundarwa and intermediate rights, i.e., under-proprietary, but the taluqdar was given power to fix the rent, and if the under-proprietors were not prepared to pay it they could resign possession and receive 10 per cent, of assets instead. Such conflicting decrees are merely provocative of further litigation in order to define the status of the subordinate party. The appellant urges that as no rent was fixed at last settlement the Settlement Court has no power to fix rents now. Such conflicting decrees are merely provocative of further litigation in order to define the status of the subordinate party. The appellant urges that as no rent was fixed at last settlement the Settlement Court has no power to fix rents now. I find that whatever else the Settlement Court at last settlement gave, it certainly conferred under-proprietary rights to land, and I am therefore empowered to fix rents under s. 79 of the Revenue Act." The Settlement Officers order was made on December 1, 1902. From that date to November, 1912, the taluqdars remained quiescent. By that time the first plaintiff in this action had succeeded to his fathers estate ; and he, on November 19, issued to the several defendants notices couched in identical terms offering a three years lease. After setting out the decree of the extra Settlement Officer made on January 30, 1871, [the notice purported to assess and fix the rent at Rs. 580 from 1320 to 1322 fasli subject to Rs. 58 dahyak, and continued as follows ] " If you accept the rental, mentioned above, you can attend the estate office of the sender of this notice and get the patta and the kabuliat completed but if you fail to get the same completed within fifteen days from this date or refuse to take up the lease of the aforesaid village at the above rental, you shall cease to have the right of possession over the village and it shall be taken under direct management. If you fail to make a reply to this notice within seven days from this date, it shall be deemed that you do not agree to take up the lease of the village on the rental assessed by me." The defendants do not seem to have given any reply to this demand—at least there is nothing on the record to show that there was a reply—and accordingly the first plaintiff, in conjunction with Lachmi Narain, brought this suit as already stated in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Gonda on May 1, 1913, for the following reliefs " (a) That a declaration be made to the effect that the defendants 1 to 5 have no zamindari right, superior or inferior, in the entire village Kundarwa owned by the plaintiffs, (b) That it may be declared that according to the old settlement decree, dated January 30, 1871, the 7 Law. Rep. 48 Ind. App. 267 ( 1920- 1921) Raja Mohammad Abul Hasan Khan V. Lachmi Narain plaintiff alone is entitled to assess and alter the amount of rent to be paid by the defendants 1 to 5. (c) That a decree for possession of the entire village Kundarwa be given." He also claimed mesne profits. The defendants in their written statement denied the right of the plaintiff to eject them ; they admitted that under the decree of January 30, 1871, the plaintiff No. 1 was the superior proprietor of the village, and they claimed that under the same decree they were entitled to under-proprietary rights. [They said that if the Court held that the rent should exceed that assessed at the recent settlement, they did not object to paying an enhanced rent, adding " the plaintiffs should seek redress in the Revenue Court."] The issues raised by the Subordinate Judge were wider than the prayers in the plaint the first was whether the defendants were under-proprietors; and the second whether the relation of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. He decided both issues against the defendants, and accordingly made a decree in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of all the reliefs asked for. He treated the defendants as trespassers and awarded to the plaintiffs possession of the village with mesne profits. On appeal the claim for ejectment and mesne profits was abandoned ; the Judicial Commissioners therefore dealt only with the question of the defendants status. He treated the defendants as trespassers and awarded to the plaintiffs possession of the village with mesne profits. On appeal the claim for ejectment and mesne profits was abandoned ; the Judicial Commissioners therefore dealt only with the question of the defendants status. They were of opinion that the decree of January 30, 1871, conferred on the birt-holder " more than a mere right of dahyak." In their view it affirmed his right as under-proprietor, and that therefore the decree for ejectment made by the Subordinate Judge was bad. They accordingly dis missed the plaintiffs suit. On the present appeal before this Board, it has been conceded that the claim for the ejectment of the defendants and for possession is not maintainable. It is admitted that such a claim arising between landlord and tenant (even assuming that the defendants position is no more than that of an ordinary tenant) is exclusively cognizable by the Revenue Courts. The decision of the Board is thus confined to the first two prayers in the plaint, which relate to the status of the defendants and the effect of the extra Assistant Settlement Commissioners order made on January 30, 1871. It seems clear that the rights of the birt-holders must be adjudged on the basis of the document which created their interest. It is called a patta ; but the term patta, like the word jote in Bengal, is a general expression and comprehends A all tenures and subordinate interests, from a permanent mokurrari tenure to a yearly lease. It has to be observed that in Oudh, as pointed out in the Chief Commissioners Circular already referred to, there exist various kinds of birts, the incidents of each of which differ from those of others. Some are acquired by purchase, and are accordingly called bai birts ; some are given from motives of piety to Brahmins, and are designated bishunprit birts. Some are acquired by purchase, and are accordingly called bai birts ; some are given from motives of piety to Brahmins, and are designated bishunprit birts. Sykes, in his valuable work, at p. 178, states their character thus " Bishunprit birts were cessions similar in almost every respect to the bai or purchased birts, save that these were given to Brahmins for the honour and glory of God (if not for that of the giver) and no consideration was taken." Such was the nature of the grant in Parmeshar Dat v. Mohammad Abul Hasan Khan (14 Oudh Cases, 335.), on which the plaintiffs counsel relies in support of his contention that the defendants have no right in the land beyond the receipt of the dahyak. The dispute there related to a bishunprit birt (see at p. 339). As the judges dealing with that case pointed out, a bishunprit khushast is not a grant for " valuable consideration," but a mere " grant by favour." Again, the settlement decree there appears to be quite different from the decree in the present case; it had simply confirmed the bishunprit-holders " existing possession " coupled with the taluqdars power to fix the rent and renew the lease. There is little or no analogy except in the common use of the word birt between a gratuitous grant like the bishunprit birt and a jungle-clearing grant where the grantee has to incur considerable 7 Law. Rep. 48 Ind. App. 267 ( 1920- 1921) Raja Mohammad Abul Hasan Khan V. Lachmi Narain 123 outlay before he can obtain any return from the land. There is a reference to " jungle-clearing birts " in pp. 176-77 of Mr. Sykes work. And on p. 191 a fuller explanation is given, thus " Chaharum and daswant (also known in the neighbouring district of Benares as bunkuttee) is an under-proprietary right obtained by clearing jungle land under a lease granted for the purpose (bunkuttee) and bringing it under cultivation, and in other cases granted to all proprietors and influential residents of the village to keep them contented and loyal. The terms chaharum and daswant are in use chiefly in the districts of Gonda and Bahraich, and mean respectively one-fourth and one-tenth, thus giving a clue to the original extent of these subordinate tenures the daswant being very similar in its nature and extent to the dahyak of the birtias. The terms chaharum and daswant are in use chiefly in the districts of Gonda and Bahraich, and mean respectively one-fourth and one-tenth, thus giving a clue to the original extent of these subordinate tenures the daswant being very similar in its nature and extent to the dahyak of the birtias. The use of the terms chaharum and daswant arose in this way. The terms of the lease were usually as follows For five years the land was rent-free ; in the sixth year the tenant paid one-sixth of the produce ; in the seventh, one-fifth ; in the eighth, one-fourth ; in the ninth, one-third ; and in the tenth, one-half the full rent. Henceforward the clearer was entitled to hold at that rent so long as the land was held pakka ; but if the landlord held kacha the clearer was entitled to have one-fourth or one-tenth of the produce which, in practice, came to mean one-fourth or one-tenth of the land rent-free in under-proprietary right. This tenure, like the others, was liable to encroachment in the shape of an assessment of rent, but that would be low in any case." The patta in the present case expressly declares that the grantor has given the land of the village to the grantee to get it cultivated and populated. It was for the purpose of clearing the jungle, making the land fit for cultivation and bringing in raiyats, which carried with it the duty of sinking wells, etc. It is declared in the patta that " the birt-holder was to enjoy it free for five or six years." A comparatively small but gradually ascending rent is fixed for the years 1210 to 1214, in proportion, it would seem, to the increasing productiveness of the soil. After 1214 he was to pay " the revenue to the sarkar prevalent in the taluqa, and take the daswant prevalent in the taluqa." The deduction was in the nature of a rebate. By his order of January 30, 1871, the extra Assistant Commissioner declared the right of the birt-holder, and made a decree " upholding " in express terms his " possession and occupation as an under-proprietor .... under the provisions of Circular II. By his order of January 30, 1871, the extra Assistant Commissioner declared the right of the birt-holder, and made a decree " upholding " in express terms his " possession and occupation as an under-proprietor .... under the provisions of Circular II. of 1862 in respect of the village Kundarwa." The reference to the circular in the decree shows, as the Judicial Commissioners rightly observe, that " the extra Assistant Commissioner decided and must have intended to decide " that the birt-holder was an under-proprietor under the provisions of that circular. The extra Assistant Commissioner further declared the condition on which the land was held under the patta, that " the taluqdar shall always have the power to renew the patta and to award and assess the jama according to the practice observed during the shahi times " ; that is, before the annexation. The jama is to be assessed according to the practice observed prior to 1855, as indicated in the circular itself. There is no evidence, however, in the case what the practice was in those days. The patta, however, lays down a standard for the assessment of the jama. The taluqdar cannot capriciously enhance the rent ; the assessment must be in accordance with the rate prevalent in the taluqa. Whether it is in accordance with such rate or not, in case of a dispute, is a matter wholly within the cognizance of the Revenue Courts. Nor, from the terms of the patta or the decree of 1871, does it appear that the taluqdar is vested with the power of amending and assessing the rent arbitrarily at short intervals, which would necessarily be a harassment to the inferior holder as well as the raiyat. The facts already recited show that for a number of years the defendants have been paying a rent of Rs. 500, less their tenth. It is alleged by the plaintiff that between 1875 and 1879 there was an interruption of their possession, and the village was let on a higher rental to other people. If these pattas represented real transactions it is difficult to understand why no reference was made to them in 7 Law. Rep. 48 Ind. App. 267 ( 1920- 1921) Raja Mohammad Abul Hasan Khan V. Lachmi Narain 124 the proceedings in 1898, or 1901 before the Deputy Collector. If these pattas represented real transactions it is difficult to understand why no reference was made to them in 7 Law. Rep. 48 Ind. App. 267 ( 1920- 1921) Raja Mohammad Abul Hasan Khan V. Lachmi Narain 124 the proceedings in 1898, or 1901 before the Deputy Collector. Again, considering that the rent in the patta for 1287 is stated to be Rs. 1451, and in that of 1875 it is stated to be Rs. 1826, it is not explained how the defendants were found in 1901 to be paying only Rs. 500. Anyhow, interruption of that character cannot affect or alter the defendants rights under the patta of 1802 or the decree once they got back into possession. On the whole their Lordships concur with the Judicial Commissioners in holding that the respondents, as declared in the decree of 1871, possess an under-proprietary right in the village of Kundarwa, granted to their ancestor in 1802. The appeal will, therefore, be dismissed with costs, and their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty accordingly.