Back
1922 Supreme(SC) 28
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
VISCOUNT CAVE, LORD SHAW, SIR JOHN EDGE, AND MR. AMEER ALI.
CHIDAMBARA SIVAPRAKASA PANDARA SANNADHIGAL - Appellant
Versus
VEERAMA REDDI - Respondents
On Appeal from the High Court at Madras.
Decided On : May 15, 1922.
Solicitor for appellant:Douglas Grant Solicitors for respondents: Chapman-Walker & Shephard.
Inam grants are not subject to a general presumption regarding whether they convey only the right to rent (melvaram) or also the right to occupancy (kudivaram); such determinations must be based on the specific facts, terms of the grant, and evidence of each case.
Headnote:(A) Estates Land Act (I of 1908) - Sections 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 181 - Civil Procedure Code - Sections 100, 103 and Order XLI Rule 25 - Land occupancy rights - Distinction between melvaram (right to rent) and kudivaram (right to occupancy) - Inam grants - Burden of proof - Whether a presumption exists that an inam grant is only for land revenue (melvaram) or includes the soil (kudivaram) - Held: No such presumption exists; each case must be decided on its own facts and evidence. (Paras 124-126)
(B) Civil Procedure Code - Order XLI Rule 25 - Jurisdiction of High Court - Power to frame issues for trial by lower court and direct further evidence to be taken to avoid miscarriage of justice when a lower appellate court fails to determine a material issue of fact. (Paras 122-123)
(C) Estates Land Act (I of 1908) - Section 6 - Permanent right of occupancy - Ryots in possession of ryoti land (not being old waste) at the time of the Act's passing are granted permanent occupancy rights, affirming existing customary laws. (Paras 123-124)
Facts of the case:
A landlord sought to eject tenants from lands, claiming that an inam grant from 1743 gave him both the right to receive rent and the right to occupy the land. The tenants contended they held permanent occupancy rights by prescription and custom, having occupied the land for generations, partitioned holdings, and received government compensation for acquired portions. The landlord relied on certain documents which were found by the lower courts to be fabricated.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the tenants had conclusively established their occupancy rights through long-term possession and dealings with the land. The landlord failed to prove he held the right of occupancy (kudivaram) over the lands in the tenants' possession.
Issues: (1) Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to remit the case to the lower court for findings on facts under the Civil Procedure Code. (2) Whether there is a legal presumption regarding the nature of inam grants (melvaram vs. kudivaram) and who bears the burden of proof.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that no general presumption exists that an inam grant is limited to land revenue or includes the soil; the effect of a grant must be determined by its terms and the surrounding circumstances. Furthermore, the High Court is competent to remit a case for findings on essential facts under Order XLI Rule 25 of the Civil Procedure Code to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
Result: Consolidated appeals dismissed.
Consolidated Appeal (No. 38 of 1920), by special leave, from a judgment and five decrees of the High Court (August 17, 1915), affirming four and reversing one decree of the District Judge of Trichinopoly (October 28, 1908), who had affirmed three and reversed two decrees of the District Munsif.
The five suits which gave rise to the present consolidated appeal were instituted by the appellant in 1904 in the Court of the District Munsif to eject the defendants from lands occupied by them respectively in the village of Karappudayanpatti ; the plaint alleged that the defendants were tenants from year to year whose tenancies had been determined by notice. The appellant was head of the Thurayar math, and in that capacity held the village under an inam grant made in 1743. The defendants pleaded that they had permanent rights of occupancy.
The terms of the grant, the effect of the evidence, and the course of the proceedings in the Courts in India fully appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.
The Estates Land Act (I. of 1908, Mad.) was passed and came into operation after the decree of the trial judge and before that of the first appellate Court.
Special leave to appeal was granted, the suits being test suits.
1922. Feb. 13, 14, 16, 17. De Gruyther K.C. and Kenworthy Brown for the appellant.
Dunne K.C. and Dube for the respondents.
The arguments were mainly directed to the question of the burden of proof, the effect of the evidence, and of the findings of the Courts in India. Reference was made to Suryanarayana v. Patanna(L. R. 45 I. A. 209.); Upadrashta Venkata Sastrulu v. Divi Seetharamudu
(L. R. 46 I. A. 123.); Seturatnam Aiyar v. Venkatachala Gounden (L. R. 47 I. A. 76. Note that the words in the headnote, " The High Court.... made a decree for possession," should read, " The High Court .... dismissed the suit as to the lands above mentioned.”); Mayandi Chettiyar v. Chokkalingam Pillay (( 1904) L. R. 311. A. 83.); and, as to the jurisdiction upon a second appeal, to Durga Choudhrain v. Jawahir Singh Choudhri . (( 1890) L. R. 17 I A. 122.)
[VISCOUNT CAVE referred to Waterpark v. Fennell (( 1859) 7 H. L. C. 650.), and Hastings Corporation v. Ival . (( 1874) L. R. 19 Eq. 658.)
May 15. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by
MR. AMEER ALI These several consolidated appeals arise out of five suits brought by the plaintiff on July 27, 1904, in the Court of the District Munsif of Kulitalai in the Madras Presidency, in his capacity of head of a math, to eject the defendants from the lands in their occupation in the village of Karappudayanpatti, which he alleged belonged to his math. The defendants in the suit are cultivating tenants holding separate lands unconnected with each other. Accordingly, separate suits were brought against them.
Law Rep. 49 Ind. App. 286 ( 1921- 1922) Chidambara Sivaprakasa Pandara Sannadhigal V. Veerama Reddi 119
The plaintiffs case is that in the year 1743 the palegar of Thurayur, who owned the estate within which the village is situated, granted to the head of the math at the time the village in question; and that since then the successive holders of the office have been in possession and enjoyment not only of the right to the receipt of the dues payable by the tenants to the landlord, usually called in the Madras Presidency the melvaram, but also of the right to the actual occupancy of the lands technically called the kudivaram.
The five suits that were brought in the Munsifs Court were numbered 676, 677, 720, 721 and 722 of 1904. In suit No. 676 the plaintiff alleged that the particular tenant, for whose ejectment he was suing, held the land in dispute under a muchalka executed by the defendants predecessor on June 18, 1880, by which he bound himself to surrender the land in his occupation on failure to pay rent. In suit No. 720 the plaintiffs action related to two items of land, in respect of which he alleged that the defendants father had executed two muchalka on April 19, 1
