The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the nature of the original grant, as evidenced by the inam title deed and inam register, determines the extent of proprietary rights conferred, including rights in poramboke. The judgment also clarified that the rights and liabilities between the inamdar and the ryots are not affected by the decision.

Judgement

Appeal (No. 41 of 1944) from a judgment and decree of the High Court (July 28, 1942) which reversed on second appeal a judgment and decree of the court of the District Judge of Coimbatore (August 4, 1933), which on first appeal had affirmed a judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore (November 30, 1931).

In 1825 the British authorities in Madras granted to one Govinda Rao, the great-grandfather of the respondent, the jaghir of Maileripalayam, which consisted of seven shotriem villages. From the correspondence that passed between the departments concerned before the grant it appeared that Govinda Rao was the Head Sarishtadar in the district of Coimbatore, and that it was proposed to reward him for services rendered by him to the Government. He was asked to select seven villages, and the Collector of the District reported to the Board of Revenue the villages so selected, whereupon the latter recommended to the Governor that the grant be made to Govinda Rao as a shotriem. On December 16, 1825, the Governor in Council approved the recommendation and asked the Board of Revenue to prepare and submit the requisite deed for execution. It would appear that no deed was in fact executed, though Govinda Rao was put in possession of the villages. In 1832 Govinda Rao died, and his adopted son, Krishna Rao, was put in possession of the jaghir. The Board of Revenue recommended to the Government to approve of the succession, and observed that they had reason to believe that no deed was issued to Govinda Rao, and that they gathered from the correspondence that the grant was for three lives. In 1864 the Inam Commission, which had been set up to investigate into the titles of inam-holders, confirmed the grant of 1825 and made a settlement with the respondents father on a permanent basis., on his agreeing to pay a higher quit-rent. The inam title deed granted by the Inam Commission provided, inter alia, that the land will be your own absolute property, to hold or dispose " of as you think proper, subject only to the payment of the "above-mentioned quit-rent."

For some years before 1926 the Government had been levying watercess on the respondents ryots in respect of lands in the seven villages under the provisions of the Madras Irrigation Cess Act, 1865, as amended by later Acts. On July 9, 1927, the respondent instituted the suit out of which this appeal arose against the Government, the present appellant, claiming, inter alia, that by virtue of the shotriem grant the grantee acquired full proprietary rights, and that he was accordingly entitled to free irrigation from the water sources situated in the shotriem villages, and that neither he nor his tenants were liable to the Government for any water cess, and he prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the Government from levying water cess from him or his ryots and from otherwise interfering with his rights in that behalf.

Both the trial court and the first appellate court proceeded on the basis that if the original grant carried the full proprietary interest in the lands then the lands would be exempt from the levy of water cess by the Government, but that if the grant was only of the revenue of the lands (the melvaram) the lands would not be so exempt. Both the trial court and the first appellate court found on the evidence that the grant was only of the melvaram.

The hearing of the second appeal before the High Court was adjourned pending the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the Swamigal case (( 1941) L. R. 69 I. A. 22.), in which it was held that the principles of the Urlam case (( 1917) L. R. 44 I. A. 166.) were applicable to the cases of inams where the inam grant in fact conferred on the holder the full proprietary interest in the land. Accordingly, when the second appeal came to be heard by the High Court (Abdur Rahman and Somayya JJ.) the only question debated was whether the findings of the trial court and the first