Sulaiman and Kendall, JJ.:— [After setting forth the facts the judgment proceeded.] The only point urged on behalf of the appellants which remains for consideration is whether a right of pre-emption exists in the case.
Mauza Lohradih was originally a part of the family domains of His Highness the Maharaja of Benares. In 1911 it came under the direct administration of the Governor of the United Provinces. The Maharaja of Benares is now recognized as the zamindar of this village and is recorded as the superior proprietor (malike ala) in the khewat. The plaintiffs and the vendor were recorded manzuridars and classed as inferior proprietors (malike adna).
In the wajib-ul-arz of 1247 Fasli prepared for this village there is an entry in paragraph 6, which records a right of pre-emption. It is immaterial to consider to what extent that right was limited or confined. The existence of such a record of rights raises the presumption under section 5 of the Agra Pre-emption Act that a right of pre-emption exists, and that right is to be exercised in accordance with the provisions of sections 11 and 12 of the Act.
If the interest transferred is a “proprietary” interest within the meaning of section 11, and the plaintiffs are co-sharers within the meaning of section 12, as defined in section 4, sub-clause (1), the right to sue undoubtedly exists. The learned advocate for the appellants has argued that these sections have no application to a mere under-proprietor like the plaintiffs and the vendor.
Shortly before the wajib-ul-arz in question was prepared, Regulation VII of 1828 was in force, which defined the authority of the Raja of Benares within his territories. Paragraph 5 of that Regulation clearly shows that in making assessment of the land and the settlement of the villages, a selection had to be made of parties to engage who were designated as “raees” and the tenures belonging to them were to be considered heritable and transferable, subject to the conditions in regard to the payment of the jama assessed upon them. In the absence of such “raees”, the settlement might be made for a fixed period with farmers, unless the. Raj a should prefer making a ryotwari settlement, collecting the dues directly from the ryots. The word “manzuridar” was presumably used because these persons were selected for purposes of the engagement for the payment of revenue. They were not mere tenants or ryots, but possessed heritable and transferable rights in the lands. Payment of the revenue was also enjoined upon them.
Under the Pargana of Kaswar Raja Act (Local Act. No. I of 1911 and Local Act No. VI of 1915), the status of the Maharaja was altered, and although he became an independent Chief in his own territory, he was given the status of a zamindar or superior proprietor as regards the lands under the direct administration of the Governor of these provinces. In section 4 of the latter Act an under-proprietor is defined as being a person possessing as against the proprietor a heritable and transferable right in land. An earlier Act, Local Act No. III of 1904 (Benares Family Domains Act), section 2, sub-clause (2), also provided that an inferior proprietor would include a manzuridar, at least for the purposes of that Act.
The learned Munsif, who wrote out an excellent judgment, has correctly stated the position of a manzuridar in the following words:—“He is an under-proprietor. He is recorded in the khewat. He holds sir Tenants under him have fixed-rate tenancy and occupancy rights. The superior proprietor has nothing to do with the village except to receive a certain percentage of profits from the manzuridars. It is the manzuridar who lets out land and who brings suits against the tenants. The manzuridar is not recorded in the village papers as a tenant. He exercises all the proprietary rights except that he does not pay land revenue to the Government.”
There can be no doubt that the manzuridars possess a proprietary interest in the lands held by them. They are under-proprietors or inferior proprietors.
The main question for consideration before us is whether such an inferior proprietor is a proprietor within the meaning of that word as used in section 4, sub-clause (1). There a co-sharer is defined as a person, other than a petty proprietor, entitled as proprietor to any share or part in a mahal or village. Although inferior proprietary interests are not common inv the Agra province, they do exist in some parts. Section 76 of the Land Revenue Act contemplates the existence of such inferior proprietary rights and provides how a sub-settlement can be made with them. Obviously, therefore, a proprietor may either be a superior or an inferior proprietor. There is no reason to suppose that the word “proprietor” in section 4 of the Pre-emption Act is not used, in that general sense so as to include both a superior proprietor and an inferior proprietor. It, therefore, follows that even if an inferior proprietary interest, in land has been transferred, section 11 would be applicable and therefore persons in section 12 would have the right to pre-empt. In the present case the plaintiffs are inferior proprietors in village Lohradih and come within clause (5). The vendees are perfect strangers to the village. The right of pre-emption, therefore, undoubtedly exists.
[The judgment then went on to deal with other matters.].
The result, therefore, is that this appeal and the cross-objection are dismissed with costs.