theory, was frequently disregarded in practice It is absolutely certain that the jot or jamma of a Ryot had a market value of its own. It was often put up to public auction in satisfaction of a decree of court, and was bid for and bought by purchasers without the least reference to the Zamíndár. And almost as often, holdings changed hands by private agreement.
Sometimes a Ryot parted with his holding and was reinstated as a mere cultivator. Sometimes he conveyed it to his own Zamíndár, and sometimes again the Zamíndár was in the habit of buying holdings situated within the estate of a neighbour and a rival, for purposes of intimidation, annoyance, and revenge. In other cases the Ryot's holdings have been purchased openly and fairly, and with a perfectly lawful object, by the Zamíndár himself. If the Zamíndár had no spare land of a requisite class, and wished for a small plot on which to lay out a garden, build a temple, or excavate a tank, he was forced to bargain with his own Ryot to cede land for the purpose.
He would not be supported by law, custom, or public opinion in forcibly demanding a cession of the Ryot's land without compensation or equivalent. In England any such requirement of the superior landlord would easily be met, at the end of an annual or periodical lease, by the retention of a farm or any portion of a farm in the hands of the owner. But Cornwallis did not find, and he did not introduce, any system of periodical leases or of rents based on contract.
