1928 (11) TMI 3 - HC - Indian Laws

Interpretation of 1848 grant deed assigns villages, not just revenue, to grantee; building assessment credited.

Bomanji Ardeshir Wadia and Ors. Versus Secretary of State for India in Council

Bomanji Ardeshir Wadia and Ors. Versus Secretary of State for India in Council - AIR 1929 PC 34 Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of the 1848 grant deed.2. Entitlement to non-agricultural (building) assessment.3. Legitimacy of the trial judge's method in interpreting the deed.4. Conditions and obligations under the grant deed.5. Applicability of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, and subsequent rules.Detailed Analysis:1. Interpretation of the 1848 Grant DeedThe primary issue revolves around the interpretation of a grant deed from 1848, which converted a cash grant of Rs. 4000 per annum into a grant of villages in Salsette. The deed provided detailed descriptions of the villages, boundaries, and revenue particulars, noting that the revenue was partly derived from lands and brab trees.The court determined that the grant was not an absolute grant of the soil nor merely an assignment of revenue but an assignment of Rs. 4000 out of the village revenue subject to specific conditions. The deed was interpreted as a grant of villages, meaning that the grantee received the villages themselves, not just the revenue.2. Entitlement to Non-Agricultural (Building) AssessmentThe plaintiffs sought a declaration that non-agricultural assessment levied under statutory rules should be paid to them as a replacement for the agricultural assessment they previously received. The court ruled that the building assessment, which replaces the agricultural assessment when land use changes, should be credited to the grantee. The building assessment is viewed as an altered assessment, not an additional one, and thus follows the same principle of revenue collection from the land.3. Legitimacy of the Trial Judge's Method in Interpreting the DeedThe trial judge's method of interpreting the deed by considering antecedent correspondence was deemed illegitimate. The court emphasized that formal contracts must be construed according to their terms and not be explained or interpreted by prior communications. The High Court, while expressing doubts about the trial judge's method, reached the same conclusion on the deed's construction.4. Conditions and Obligations Under the Grant DeedVarious conditions in the deed were analyzed:- Conditions 1-3: Dealt with the calculation of land worth and the excess payment of Rs. 700.- Conditions 4-5: Explained the grantee's liability to assessment if new land is brought into cultivation.- Conditions 6, 7, 10, and 14: Secured quasi-easement rights for outsiders.- Conditions 8, 11, and 12: Addressed the grantee's obligations towards ryots or sutidars, ensuring they continue to enjoy their lands and privileges and that any changes in land assessment by the government would apply to the granted villages.- Condition 20: Clarified that the deed conferred no new rights beyond what the government possessed and only granted specific rights mentioned in the deed.5. Applicability of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, and Subsequent RulesThe Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, and rules published in 1907 were relevant to the case. Section 48 of the Code allowed for the alteration of land assessment when land use changed. Rule 5 specified that altered assessments should be levied in the same manner as agricultural assessments and credited to the holder of the alienated village.The court concluded that the building assessment, as an altered assessment, should be credited to the grantee, aligning with the principle that the holder of the village is entitled to the revenue from the land, whether agricultural or non-agricultural.ConclusionThe judgment reversed the decision denying the appellants' right to building assessment and declared that the altered assessment should be credited to them. The rest of the judgment, including the conditions and obligations under the grant deed, remained unchanged. The appellants were awarded costs in all courts.