Judgement

Consolidated Appeal (No. 46 of 1922) by special leave from two decrees (December 22, 1916) of the High Court, affirming two decrees (April 24, 1914) of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore.

The respondents, who were trustees of a Hindu temple in Tanjore, brought two suits to eject, after notice, the respondents, tenants in the inam village of Mangal, which formed part of the endowed property of the temple. The defences of the appellants were on two grounds. First, that the village was an "estate" within the meaning of s. B, sub-s. 2 (d), of the Madras Estates Land Act (Mad. Act I. of 1908), and that accordingly they had a permanent right of occupancy by s. 6 of that Act. Secondly, that they had that right apart from the Act.

The decision of the issues relating to both defences depended to a great extent upon documents in which occurred vernacular terms the meaning of which, as used in Tanjore, was obscure.

The facts and the terms of the sanad of 1723, by which the Mahratta King of Tanjore, in confirmation of an earlier inam grant, had granted the village to the temple at a favourable assessment (rokkaguthakai), appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee, as also the terms of an official memorandum of 1724 with regard to the grant, and of a register of rokkaguthakai lands made in 1809.

In addition to the documents above referred to there was in evidence a paimash account for fasli 1238 (1829) of the village. This document stated as follows " Rokkaguthakai miras of the said village, Kovilur Sri Manthrapuriswarasami "—i.e., the temple—" ekabhogam, person 1.

Kudimiras-palabhogam persons 11." It referred to the tenants (or some of them) as " ullur parakudis" and " ulavadai miras." The tenants in signing described themselves, in some cases, as " ulavadai kudi-miras," in other cases as "kudimiras."

The muchalka of 1831 (referred to in the judgment of the Board) stated that it was executed " by us the undersigned kudimirasidars of the rokkaguthakai village of Mangal belonging to " the temple. By it the signatories agreed to cultivate " from next fasli 1241 on lease," and to make payments, described as " swamibhogam," to the temple at certain rates so long as the land should continue in their possession.

There was also an agreement between all the villagers in fasli 1241, which stated that " having made ourselves responsible to sirkar for the guthakai of our village .... we shall impose upon ourselves vari according to the current fasli 1241 " ; they were to sell the melvaram of other lands which were being cultivated by parakudis and out of the proceeds and " the collections made by imposition of vari under this karai arrangement " pay the vari to the sirkar; " .... we shall act as stated above for fasli 1241, and for fasli 1242 we shall make aruathikari (karai with definite shares) of the entire lands."

The Subordinate Judge of Tanjore who tried the case found that the temple owned both the melvaram and the kudivaram interest in the village, and that accordingly it was not an " estate" within Mad. Act

I. of 1908. After considering at length the authorities and the facts of the ease, he found also that the defendants had not acquired permanent rights of occupancy by prescription, and that the suits were not barred by limitation. Decrees for ejectment accordingly were made.

On appeal to the High Court (Sadasiva Iyer and Napier JJ.) the decrees were affirmed.

Sadasiva Iyer J., with whose judgment Napier J. agreed, stated that without going into the question of the burden of proof he was clearly satisfied that the evidence supported the contentions of the plaintiffs. In the course of his judgment the learned judge said that the words " parakudi" or " asalur parakudi" and " kasavargam " implied no permanent connection with the village ; " ullur parakudis " might have permanent residential rights in the houses where they lived, and in respect of them they might be called " kudimirasidars." He stated that he did not think that