Judgement

Consolidated Appeal (No. 28 of 1932) from two decrees of the High Court (February 1, 1928) reversing two decrees of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada (February 2, 1922).

In 1909 the Madras Government, acting under s. 17 of Pro prietary Estates Village-Service Act (Mad. Act II. of 1894), enfranchised certain karnam service lands in two villages within the geographical limits of the appellants zamindari. In 1920 he instituted two suits claiming that the Government had no power to enfranchise the lands, and claiming to resume possession of them free from quit rents which

Law Rep. 62 Ind. App. 166 ( 1934- 1935) Raja Vasireddi C. Mouleswara Prasada v. Secretary of State 61

the Government had ordered the karnams to pay. Both Courts in India had held that the lands had been granted to the karnams before the permanent settlement.

The facts, and the terms of s. 17 of the above Act, appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

The Subordinate Judge made decrees in favour of the appellant. He held that the lands had been granted by the appellants predecessor for the performance of private karnam services, and that the grants had not been " granted or continued .... by the State " so as to be within s. 17 of the Act.

Appeals to the High Court were allowed and the suits dismissed.

Ramesam J. was of opinion that the karnam lands had been excluded from the permanent settlement under s. 4 of the settlement regulations (XXV. of 1802), and that they could be enfranchised under s. 17 of the Act of 1894. He said, in conclusion " The whole conduct of the Government in allowing these offices and emoluments to remain from 1802 up to 1894 shows that they are being continued within the meaning of s. 17, and even if an overt act were necessary the passing of Reg. XXIX. of 1802 itself seems to be such an overt act, not to mention other provisions relating to karnams. But I do not see why merely permitting the karnams to continue in enjoyment of the lands does not amount to continuing within the meaning of s. 17."

Venkatasubba Rao J. delivered a judgment to the same effect.

1934. Nov. 23 ; Dec. 6, 7, 10. Upjohn K.C., De Gruyther K.C., and Subba Row for the appellant. The suit lands being within the limits of the appellants zamindari, and not reserved thereout, formed part of his estate. They were granted by the appellants predecessor for private services. After the settlement the karnams performed some public services, but they remained servants of the zamindar and he still had the right of resumption. The Act of 1894 did not authorize the confiscation of any proprietary right of a zamindar ; that is shown by proviso 2. The High Court in holding that the lands were lakhiraj lands, and therefore excluded from the settlement by s. 4 of Mad. Reg. XXV. of 1802. misinterpreted the Regulations. The decision of the High Court was based mainly upon its decision as to karnam lands in Pitchayya v. Secretary of State (( 1919) 58 I. C. 713.), but that conflicts with its earlier decision in Surayanarayana v. Secretary of State. (( 1914) 25 I. C. 878.) The settlement did not disturb existing titles Collector of Trichinopoly v. Lekkamani. (( 1874) L. R. 1 I. A. 282, 313.) In Ranjit Singh v. Kali Dasi Debi (( 1917) L. R. 44 I. A. 117.) the Board held that the proprietary interest of a Bengal zamindar extended to lands granted for chaukidari chakaran services. Prima facie a zamindars interest extends to all lands within his zamindari. [Reference was made also to Perhlad Sein v. Doorgapersaud (( 1869) 12 Moo. I. A. 286.), Kandukuri Balasurya v. Secretary of State for India (( 1917) L. R. 44 I. A. 166.) ; Fifth Report (Mad. edn.), paras. 15 to 18, 22, 25, 26 and Appx. 18 ; Rules of Inam Commission, 1859, rr. 1, 2, 18, 23.] Dunne, K.C., Narasimham and Pringle for respondent No. 1. From 1799 to the Inam Commission of 1859, and on to 1894, the suit lands can be traced in Government records entered in the names of the karnam as inam lands held free from assessm