Proceedings of revenue authorities not conclusive.

This appeal arises out of a suit, O.S.No. 55 of 1945, filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Salem by 22 persons who were occupying sepa rate lands in the village of Kannurpatti Agraharam for a declaration that the lands in their possession are ryoti lands in an estate within the meaning of the definitions of those terms in the Madras Estates Land Act and therefore the plaintiffs have occupancy rights therein. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit. Plaintiffs 1, 3, 6, 8 to 15 and 17 to 19 are the appellants. During the pendency of the suit itself, some of the plaintiffs compromised with the defendant landholders, and they withdrew from the suit. During the pendency of the appeal some of the’ appellants have also entered into compromises with the respondent landholders, and it is common ground before us that the only appellants who press this appeal are appellants 1, 3, 4 and 5.

The only question which arises in this appeal is whether the lands in suits are situated within an estate within the definition of that term in section 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act. That definition, in so far as it is material to this appeal, runs thus:

“Any inam village of which the grant has been made, confirmed or recognised by the British Government, notwithstanding that subsequent to the grant, the village has been partitioned among the grantees or the successors in title of the grantee or grantees......

Explanation 3: Where a portion of an inam village is resumed by the Government, such portion shall cease to be part of the estate, but the rest of the village shall be deemed to be an inam village for the purposes of this sub-clause. If the portion so resumed or any part thereof is subsequently regranted by the Government as an inam, such portion or part, shall, from the date of such regrant be regarded as forming part of the inam village for the purposes of this sub-clause.”

The only evidence we have which has a bearing on the question in issue is furnished by the extract from the Register of Inams prepared at the time of the Inam Settlement during 1863 to 1866. From this extract, we obtain the following information about the origin and history of the inam grant of the lands now in occupation of the appellants. Originally, about 300 years before the time of the Inam Settlement, there was a grant made by the then Palayagar, one Ramachandra Naick it does not appear very clearly, but it may be assumed, that the original grant was of an entire village in inam. In the days of Tippu, one half of this village was resumed. After the British conquest, one Capt. Macleod appears to have granted to the descendants of the original grantees (agraharamdars) lands scattered here and there in the ryotwari village of Kannurpatti which yielded a moiety of the income of three inam villages. This was evidently in lieu of the moiety of the original village which had remained in the possession of the agraharamdars after the resumption in the days of Tippu. At the time of the inam settlement the village was being enjoyed in 30 shares or vrittis. The vrittis varied in extent and his assessment in respect of each vritti also varied. The recommendation of the Inam Commissioner was that the total extent of the lands in possession of the several agraharamdars may be confirmed in one joint title deed, though specifying the quit rent which each vrittidar had to pay to the Government. This course was obviously adopted as a convenient method of determining the liability of the agraharamdars to the Government by way of quit rent. It is not disputed that the lands covered by the title deed did not form one whole block within defined boundaries and down to this day, these scattered bits of land are found clubbed along with admitted ryotwari lands as part and parcel of the ryotwari village of Kannurpatti.

On these facts which are really the only facts which are material for a decision of the question in issue, there can only be one conclusion,