The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the inam grant terms and the determination of whether the village constituted an estate within the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908.

Judgement

Consolidated Appeal (No. 47 of 1925) from orders of the High Court (April 5, 1922) in an appeal under the letters patent, reversing orders of a Division Bench which had affirmed orders of the Principal District Munsif of Tenali.

The respondents brought suits in the Munsifs Court to eject the appellants, who were ryots, from lands in the agraharam village of Arepalli. The question in the litigation was whether the village constituted an estate within the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, in which case the Revenue Courts had exclusive jurisdiction in the suits by s. 189 of the Act. It was contended by the defendants that the village was an " estate " within s. 3, sub-s. 2 (d), which is set out in the present judgment, and the substantial question arising was whether the inam grant to the plaintiffs predecessors included, as they contended, the kudivaram, or was, as the defendants contended, merely of the melvaram, or land-revenue.

The original grant was lost, but there was produced from the custody of certain of the plaintiffs a document (exhibit 1) which was more than thirty years old, and purported to contain a copy of the grant of 1689. This document appears in the judgment of their Lordships.

The District Munsif, who first tried the suits, held that the Civil Courts had no jurisdiction ; he directed the return of the plaints for presentation in the Revenue Court. The plaintiffs appealed to the District Court, and the appeals were transferred by order to the High Court, which held that the grants were presumably grants of the land, and remanded the suits for recording revised findings upon the evidence.

The suits came upon remand before a newly appointed District Munsif, who held that exhibit 1 was inadmissible in evidence, and that the village was not an estate within the Act of 1908. He made decrees for ejectment.

The appeals were then heard together by Ayling O.C.J. and Odgers J. The former held that exhibit 1 was admissible in evidence, and that upon its true construction the respondents predecessors had acquired only the melvaram ; he accordingly was of opinion that the Civil Courts had no jurisdiction. Odgers J. was of the contrary opinion upon both points. Accordingly the decision of the Munsif returning the plaints was affirmed under s. 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Appeals by the defendants under s. 15 of the letters patent were heard together by Schwabe C.J., Oldfield and Coutts-Trotter JJ., and were allowed. The learned judges held that exhibit 1 was admissible in evidence, but that it was equally consistent with the grant having been of the land-revenue or of the land itself; that therefore, under the decision of the Full Bench in Muthu Goundan v. Perumal Iyen(( 1921) I. L. R. 44 M. 588.) (which was subsequently disapproved by the Privy Council in Chidambara Sivaprakasa Pandara v. Veerama Reddi (( 1922) L. R. 49 I. A. 286.)), the grant was to be presumed to have been of both varams, and that the evidence did not negative that presumption. The suits were accordingly remanded to be disposed of. The letters patent appeal is reported at I. L. R. 46 M. 92.

1928. Nov. 20, 22, 23, 26. De Gruyther K.C. and Parikh for the appellants.

Dunne K.C. and Narasimham for the respondents.

Upon the admissibility of exhibit 1 in evidence reference was made to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, ss. 32, sub-s. 7, 63, 65, 90, 114; and upon the construction and effect of the grant to Suryanarayana v. Patanna (( 1918) L. R. 45 I. A. 209.) ; Upadrashta Venkata Sastrulu v. Divi Seetharamudu (( 1919)

L. R. 46 I. A. 123.) ; Chidambara Sivaprakasa Pandara v. Veerama Reddi (( 1922) L. R. 49 I. A. 286.); also to Venkatanarasimha Naidu v. Dandamudi Kotayya (( 1897) I. L. R. 20 M. 299.) as to the relation between zamindars and ryots in pre-British days; to Venkata Sastrulu v. Sitaramudu (( 1914)

I. L. R. 38 M. 891, 892.) and to Wilsons Glossary, s.v. "mauza," as to "mauje"; to Fifth Report, Madras, vol. ii., p. 157 and Wilsons Glossary as