Bhuli Sing and Others vs Mussamat Nimu Behu

Sir Barnes Peacock Kt., C.J.—This is a very clear case. Malikana is not rent, nor has it the elements of rent. It is a right to receive a portion of the profits of the estate for which the Government have made a settlement with another person, the real proprietor having neglected to come in and make a settlement. It being a right to receive something out of the collections of the estate, it is an interest in immoveable property, and consequently section 1, clause 12 of Act XIV of 1859 applies to this case. The decision of Mr. Justice Kemp is in conformity with all the previous decisions on the subject, which have held that the right to collect malikana is barred, if the malikana has not been received for a period of 12 years. It appears to me therefore that that decision ought to be affirmed with costs. It may be a question whether u/s 46, Regulation VIII of 1793. a suit will lie at all: upon that point, I express no opinion.