The main legal point established in the judgment is that the terms of the original grant, as evidenced by exhibit I, determined the rights of the parties, and subsequent events and materials presented did not alter the terms of the original grant.

Judgement

Appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court (March 7, 1916) affirming a decree of the District Judge of South Arcot (August 18, 1910) which affirmed a decree of the District Munsif of Tirukoilur.

The suit was instituted in the Court of the District Munsif against the appellant by the respondents who were shrotriyadars of the village of Kollur. They claimed a declaration of their full rights to the rocks and hills within the village (except as to a portion acquired from them by the Madras Government in 1887), a refund of Rs. 89, paid by them for royalties levied by the Madras Government in respect of stone quarried from the village, and for other relief.

The respondents title was based upon a shrotriyam grant made in 1750 by the Nawab of Carnatic to their predecessor in title. By their plaint respondents further relied upon title-deeds granted by the Inam Commissioner, and upon the fact that in 1887 the Government being in need of stone had acquired part of their land under the Land Acquisition Act. They also pleaded that they had a prescriptive right, but upon that issue there were concurrent findings of fact against them.

The appellant by his written statement denied that there was any conveyance of the right of the State in regard to minerals by the original grant ; he denied that there had been any recognition by the Government of an exclusive right to the minerals ; he further submitted that it was not competent to the Inam Commissioner to concede to the shrotriyadars any rights in excess of those originally granted.

Of the issues framed the two which were material to the appeal appear from the judgment of their Lordships.

The respondents did not produce the original grant, but the appellant produced a register from the office of the Collector of South Arcot, an extract from which formed exhibit I. This exhibit included a translation of the parwana of A.D. 1750 stated in the extract to bear the seal of Nawab Anwar-ud-din, and to have been written at a date corresponding to A.D. 1750. The translation was as follows " To the aumels present and future of the purgunna of Tricoloor, sirkar of Nesserut Ghur (Genjee). Be it known — It has been represented to us that the entire village of Culloor, in the purgunna aforesaid, has been established and enjoyed for a length of time by way of shrotrium,’ for the yearly sum of 110 gory chuckrums, according to the sunnads of former princes, as a subsistence to Letchmi Narasumachary, zunardar(Wilson’s Glossary “ Zannardar, the wearer of the characteristic thread or cord, especially a Brahman”, and that these sunnads have been lost; wherefore it is written, that the said village, provided it has been enjoyed, according to the mamool sheedamed shall be restored to the said zunardar, that, having appropriated to his own use the produce of the seasons, each year, he may be assiduous in offering up prayers for the lasting prosperity of the empire, and let him pay regularly, to the sirkar the established amount of the shrotrium.’”

The exhibit included a translation of a further document purporting to be of a date corresponding to

A.D. 1793 by which the village was stated to have been established as a " perpetual shrotrium," and to be thereby restored.

The inam register under date October 21, 1861 (exhibit J), in the column "Description of inam" stated "for the personal benefit of the holders. The register of 1815 also states that the grant was made for subsistence. The terms of the parwana are ‘darooje maddah maish. (Le, “for personal subsistence.”)"

The three inam title deeds (exhibit A) were all dated July 22, 1865. Two of them (which referred to lands which had been alienated from the family of the original grantee) contain the following clause, inserted in consideration of an increased quit-rent " The inam is confirmed to you in freehold. In other words the land will be your own absolute property to hold or dispose of as you think proper, subject only to the payment of the