1861 (11) TMI 1 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Authenticity and alteration of the Mocurrery Istemrary lease (sunnud).
2. Determination of the original grantee and the terms of the grant.
3. Allegations of fraudulent alteration and tampering with the document.
4. Presumption of validity based on long-term possession and conduct of parties.
5. Consideration of evidence and corroborative proofs.
6. Impact of lapse of time and limitation regulations on the suit.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Authenticity and alteration of the Mocurrery Istemrary lease (sunnud):
The primary issue in this case revolves around the authenticity of the Mocurrery Istemrary lease granted by Maharajah Mitterjeet Singh Bahadoor in 1795. The main contention is whether the grant was solely to Lalla Hoonooman Dutt or to him and his uterine brothers "from generation to generation." The Respondents allege that the Persian words indicating the latter were fraudulently added, while the Appellants maintain they were always part of the document.

2. Determination of the original grantee and the terms of the grant:
The substantial question is whether the grant was intended to be a perpetual lease to Lalla Hoonooman Dutt and his heirs, or if it was limited to his lifetime. The addition of the words "from generation to generation" would make the grant perpetual, affecting the tenure's validity beyond Lalla Hoonooman Dutt's death.

3. Allegations of fraudulent alteration and tampering with the document:
The Respondents argue that the document was altered fraudulently by substituting words to include Lalla Hoonooman Dutt's brothers and their heirs. They claim that the original words were erased and replaced. Conversely, the Appellants contend that any tampering occurred while the document was in the custody of the Sudder Ameen's Court in 1842, suggesting that the Plaintiff's agents colluded with the Record-keeper to disfigure the document.

4. Presumption of validity based on long-term possession and conduct of parties:
The judgment highlights that long-term possession and conduct of the parties, such as the partition of the property among Lalla Hoonooman Dutt's brothers in 1807, support the Appellants' case. The Maharajah's actions, including granting a Teeka lease to his son in 1839 and the partition among his sons in 1840, recognized the subsisting Mocurrery tenure, indicating the grant's original terms might have included the brothers.

5. Consideration of evidence and corroborative proofs:
The Sudder Adawlut's decision was based on the inspection of the document, concluding that it was fraudulently altered. However, the judgment emphasizes the need to weigh the whole evidence, including corroborative proofs, to determine the document's original condition. The Appellants argue that the document's suspicious appearance was due to tampering by the Plaintiff's agents, not by them.

6. Impact of lapse of time and limitation regulations on the suit:
The Appellants raised the plea that the suit was barred by lapse of time under the Regulations of limitation. Although the Sudder Adawlut treated it as decided against the Defendants, the judgment does not find any clear adjudication on this plea. The long delay in asserting the alleged rights by the Respondent and the loss of evidence due to the passage of time are significant factors in the case.

Conclusion:
The judgment concludes that the evidence and conduct of the parties over the years support the Appellants' case. The Respondent's failure to produce the original Kuboolyet and the long-term recognition of the Mocurrery tenure by the Maharajah's family weigh against the Respondent's allegations of fraudulent alteration. The appeal is allowed, the decision of the Sudder Adawlut is reversed, and the Zillah Court's decision is affirmed. The Respondents are ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.