Raiyati land transfer bar extends to exchange; void transaction, adverse possession fails, and Section 11 does not bar the suit.

A statutory prohibition on transfer by a raiyat in Sonthal Parganas was held to extend to an exchange of raiyati land where no right to transfer was recorded in the Record of Rights, so the exchange was void under Section 27. A plea of adverse possession did not defeat the reversioners' suit because the claim was brought within twelve years of the widow's death, and possession during the widow's lifetime did not extinguish the reversionary right. The suit was also not barred by Section 11, as the validity of the exchange had not previously been decided by a settlement officer. The High Court decree was set aside and the decree for the reversioners restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an exchange of raiyati land in Sonthal Parganas was invalid under S. 27 of the Sonthal Parganas Settlement Regulation, 1872; (ii) whether the plea of adverse possession defeated the reversioners' suit; (iii) whether the bar under Section 11 of the Sonthal Parganas Settlement Regulation, 1872 prevented the suit.

Issue (i): Whether an exchange of raiyati land in Sonthal Parganas was invalid under S. 27 of the Sonthal Parganas Settlement Regulation, 1872.

Analysis: Section 27 imposed an absolute prohibition on transfer by a raiyat of his holding, unless the right to transfer was recorded in the Record of Rights. The prohibition was comprehensive enough to include a transfer by exchange, since exchange also involves transfer of ownership. Sub-section (2) further directed that no contravention should be recognised as valid by any court. As the lands were raiyati lands in Sonthal Parganas and no recorded right to transfer was shown, the exchange was hit by the statutory bar.

Conclusion: The exchange was invalid and void under S. 27, and the finding upholding it was erroneous.

Issue (ii): Whether the plea of adverse possession defeated the reversioners' suit.

Analysis: The suit was brought within twelve years of the widow's death. In the case of property inherited by a widow, adverse possession during her lifetime does not, by itself, extinguish the right of the next reversioners, who may sue within the statutory period after her death. The plea of adverse possession therefore could not prevail against the reversioners in the circumstances of the case.

Conclusion: The plea of adverse possession failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the bar under Section 11 of the Sonthal Parganas Settlement Regulation, 1872 prevented the suit.

Analysis: The question whether the exchange was invalid under S. 27 had not been decided by any settlement officer, and Section 11 only attached finality to matters actually decided by the settlement authority, subject to the limited statutory exception. Since the validity of the exchange had not earlier been adjudicated in that manner, the bar did not apply.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred by Section 11.

Final Conclusion: The decree of the High Court was set aside and the decree in favour of the reversioners was restored, with costs awarded to the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory prohibition against transfer by a raiyat extends to an exchange of raiyati land where the right to transfer is not recorded, and such a void transfer cannot be validated by subsequent events or defeated by an inapplicable procedural bar.

---