No presumption of law exists that an inam grant excludes the kudivaram (permanent occupancy) interest. Whether a property is an "estate" under the Estates Land Act, 1908, depends on whether the grant was for land revenue alone or the entire proprietary interest.

Judgement

Consolidated Appeals from a judgment and decrees of the High Court (March 18, 1914), affirming decrees of the District Judge of Kistna, which reversed decrees of the District Munsif.

Law Rep. 46 Ind. App. 123 ( 1918- 1919) Upadrashta Venkata Sastrulu V. Divi Seetharamudu

10

The appellant brought suits in the Court of the District Munsif to eject persons to whom in 1907 he had let several parcels of land amounting to about sixty acres and forming part of an inam village. The tenancy agreements expired in 1908, and each contained a declaration that the tenant had no right except that of cultivating for a year under the agreement. The defendants by their written statements alleged that they had rights of permanent occupancy, and that the village was an " estate " within the meaning of s. 3, sub-s. 2 (d), of Madras Estate Land Act, 1908, so that (by s. 189 of that Act) the revenue Court alone had jurisdiction. The suits were tried together throughout.

The facts appear from the judgment of their Lordships.

The following issues were framed together with others which are not material to this report (1.) Whether the plaint agraharam is an " estate" coming within s. 3, sub-s. 2 (d), of the Estates Land Act; (2.) whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit; (3.) whether the plaintiff has the inherent right to eject the defendants, or he acquired such right under the exception to s. 8, or whether the defendants have occupancy rights.

The District Munsif delivered judgment for the plaintiff. He held that the village and the lands in question were not an " estate," or part of an " estate," within the Act ; and that both according to the express contract between the parties and by virtue of the general custom of the agraharam the plaintiff was entitled to eject the defendants. He also thought that the plaintiff had that right under the exceptions to s. 8 of the Act.

The District Judge, on appeal, reversed the decisions. He relied upon certain decisions of the Bombay and Madras High Courts as establishing that there was a presumption of law that an inam grant did not carry the " kudivaram " interest, and that the burden was upon the agraharamdar to show that the tenants had no occupancy rights. In his view the terms of the sanad of 1783 and the use of the word " mouje " indicated that the village had been occupied. He therefore held that the village was an " estate " within s. 3, sub-s. 2 (d), of the Act, and that consequently the civil Court had no jurisdiction. He accordingly ordered that the plaints be returned for presentation in the revenue Court.

Upon appeal to the High Court, that Court called for precise findings on two questions, and the findings thereon were as follows (1.) That the lands were waste, as claimed by the plaintiff, at the time of the grant; (2.) that the tenants who had surrendered the lands in fasli 1313 ( 1904) had not occupancy rights.

The cases coming on for final disposal, the High Court affirmed the decrees of the District Judge.

The learned judges (Sadashiva Aiyar and Seshagiri Aiyar JJ.) were of opinion that there was a presumption of law as held by the District Judge, and that the fact that the land in question was waste at the date of the grant was immaterial ; they considered that whatever inhabitants there then were had rights of occupancy in the further 240 acres forming part of the village included in the inam grant, those 240 acres not being shown to have been waste. Their conclusion was that the lands were an " estate " within, the Act. They also held that the exception in s. 8 of the Act was not applicable. The appeal to the High Court is reported at I. L. R. 38 M. 891.

1919. Feb. 21. Kenworthy Brown for the appellant. The judgments of the District Judge and of the High Court were based upon there being a presumption of law that an inam grant did not include the kudivaram interest. That view has since been rejected by the Board in Suryanarayana v. Patanna, (L. R. 45 I. A. 20