The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Madras Estates Land Act provisions, specifically regarding the classification of lands as private or ryoti, and the impact of surrender by a previous tenant on the occupancy rights of the appellant.

Sidney Wadsworth, Officiating C.J.

1. The respondent has obtained a decree for the possession of the village of Kaduveli which is a part of the Tanjore Palace Estate. The appellant who is the tenant claims that the suit lands are situated in an estate governed by the Madras Estates Land Act and that he has occupancy rights therein and cannot be evicted. The trial Court has held that, whatever was the position before the amendment of the Madras Estates Land Act by the Madras Act, XVIII of 1936, the lands must now be deemed to be part of an estate under the Estates Land Act. It has also negative the claim of the plaintiff that these are private lands within the definition in Section 3(10) of that Act. But it has held that the defendant is not entitled to resist the plaintiffs claim for possession because the occupancy right in these lands is held not by the defendant but by a previous tenant. In appeal it is contended that this finding regarding the subsistence of the occupancy right of the previous tenant is erroneous; but the respondent contends that even granting so much, the appellant must fail because the lower court erred in holding that the lands in suit are not private land.

2. In order to understand the question arising in this suit it is necessary to summarise very briefly the history of the Tanjore Palace Estate. In 1799 the then Raja of Tanjore by treaty ceded to the East India Company the right to collect revenue of the lands in the Tanjore Country and to administer justice therein. The Raja retained control over the Fort of Tanjore and was also permitted to retain certain villages and lands and palaces. This state of affairs continued up to the death of the last Raja in 1855. On his death, there being no heir, the Court of Directors of the East India Company decided that the title of Raja had become extinct and the whole of his property including some 190 villages lapsed to the East India Company. Accordingly in October, 1856, Mr. H. Forbes appointed for the purpose, took possession of the entire estate.

3. The senior widow of the last Raja then filed a bill in equity in the Supreme Court at Madras against the East India Company claiming to be entitled to succeed to the whole of her late husbands estate. She succeeded before the Supreme Court, but on appeal to His Majesty in Council it was held that the seizure of this-estate, including the public and private property of the late Raja, was an act of the sovereign power which could not be questioned in the municipal Courts and the claim of the widow was therefore rejected. After this decision the widows of the late Raja presented a memorial in which they asked for a grant of the properties of the late Raja to his heirs as an act of grace and justice. By an order dated the 21st August, 1862, passed under the instructions of the Government of India which had succeeded the East India Company, the equitable claim of the Rajas widows and daughter was recognised and the whole of the lands were relinquished in their favour. It was ordered that the estate should be made over to the senior widow to be managed by her and she was required to provide in a suitable manner for the participative enjoyment of the estate in question by the other widows--her co-heirs; and on the death of the last, surviving widow, the daughter of the late Raja, or failing her the next heirs of the last Raja, if any, would inherit the property. The Government Agent at Tanjore was directed to place the senior widow in possession of the property. Vide Chota Raja Saheb v. Sundaram Aiyar (1936)71 M.L.J. 41 : L.R. 63 IndAp 224 : I.L.R. 59 Mad. 633

4. In 1866 litigation commenced between the Ranees and a receiver was appointed by the Court. The whole of the villages belonging to the Tanjore Palace Estate remained in the possession of receivers from 1866 down to 1912 when the last receiver filed an inter-pleader suit, O.S. No. 26 of 1912 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore, which subsequentl