Ameer Ali, J - (1.)The sole question for determination in this appeal relates to the status of the plaintiff- respondent under the Oudh Land Laws, viz,, whether he is an "under-proprietor" or, as the defendant alleges, a mere lessee. The suit was brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Partabgarh to recover possession from the defendant, the talukdar of Rajapur, of the village of Daulatpur, lying within the taluka,on the ground that it was owned by the plaintiff as "under-proprietor," and that he had been wrongfully dispossessed therefrom by the defendant in execution of a rent-decree, The defendant denied the plaintiff s title as "under-proprietor", and alleged that he was only a lessee, and was, therefore liable under the Rent Law to ejectment for default in the payment of his rent. The Subordinate Judge held in favour of , the plaintiff, and decreed his claim for possession and for mesne profits during the period he has been kept out of possession. And this decree has been affirmed by the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh. The defendant now appeals to His Majesty in Council.
(2.)A short statement of the facts will explain the relative position of the parties, as also the nature of their respective contentions. The plaintiff and defendant are closely related, being cousins in the first degree. The taluka of Rajapur, now held by the defendant, was settled with his father, Sheoamber Singh, in 1859. In 1861, in the course of the regular settlement, the plaintiff applied for a settlement of a half share with him on the ground that he was jointly entitled to the estate with Sheoamber. On this petition he was directed to "bring a claim at the time of settlement." Six years later, whilst the regular settlement was still proceeding, he applied again to the settlement authorities to have his name recorded as a co-owner in respect of a moiety of the taluka.
(3.)In this petition the grounds of his claim were more specifically stated : that his father, Lal Din Singh, and Sheoamber were full brothers and members of a joint family, and that the taluka had been acquired in the name of Sheoamber for the benefit of both brothers, This petition was entered as a suit before the Extra Assistant Commissioner of Partabgarh, Sheoamber contested the claim of the plaintiff to a half share of the property, but admitted his right to maintenance as a junior member of the family. Before trial, however, the parties compromised the dispute. The terms of the settlement arrived at are embodied in a joint petition filed in Court on the 29th October, 1867. By this compromise, in consideration of the plaintiff withdrawing his suits and abandoning his claim to a share of the taluka, Sheoamber gave to him the village of Daulatpur, at a rent of rupees 461: 4, being the Government revenue payable thereon, together with certain lands situated in other villages at fixed rentals. As regards the village of Daulatpur the plaintiff was to pay, besides the "rent," thewages of the patwari and choukidar and the village expenses. And then followed the conditions of the grant, "that the plaintiff will pay to the talukdar, the defendant, the above-mentioned jama every year; that the plaintiff and his heirs will appropriate the profits of the above-mentioned village and lands, and that the defendant will have no right to resume them or to enhance the rent.