MALAY LAND TENURE. 105 



In this case, it was laid down, among other things, that 

 " the owner of the soil * ( proprietor ? ) may sell or otherwise 

 " dispose of his interest without prejudice to the cultivator, 

 " and the cultivator vice versa." This is, of course, quite con- 

 sistent with the existence of separate rights, but these are not 

 necessarily confined to two persons, the possessor of the first 

 proprietary right (whom, for convenience sake, I have hitherto 

 called the proprietor) and the cultivator, but there may inter- 

 vene any number of subordinate proprietary rights, one spring- 

 ing from within another. 



Where a chief or royal favourite or some powerful individual 

 or family has obtained a grant from the Raja, or has usurped 

 the right of the Raja to levy tenths and taxes and to dispose 

 of abandoned land, a relationship between this superior proprie- 

 tor and the cultivator is established, which soon develops into a 

 system of tenancy, which is not readily distinguishable from that 

 just described. The tenant continues to be the proprietor of his 

 holding on fixed tenure, subject to the customary terms, while 

 the rights of the superior proprietor, be they the creation of 

 the Raja, or inherited, or the result of usurpation, become, in 

 course of time, so fixed and continuous as to favour the im- 

 pression that they include ownership of the soil. The position, 

 therefore, which the judgment in Abdullatif v. Mahomed 

 Meera Lebe discusses as existing between " the owner of the 

 soil - " (see note at foot) and the cultivator, may be created 

 either by the admission of a tenant by a proprietor already 

 in possession or by the establishment of a proprietor over 

 the heads of cultivators already in possession. In a Malay 

 State, the exercise of the rights of the superior proprietor are 

 liable to much fluctuation. The despotic power of the Raja 

 in petty Asiatic States is, of course, fatal to anything like 



* With all deference, I conceive that the learned Recorder was in error 

 in using the term " owner of the soil." The first proprietor has really 

 only a proprietary right (unless, in Malacca, he has purchased the freehold 

 from the British Government), which depends upon continuous occupation 

 and payment of tenths to the Raja or Government, but, of course, in a district 

 where land is valuable, occupation is certain to be continuous and thus the 

 first proprietor comes to be regarded as the "owner of the soil." 



