Ownership of river beds in the Presidency was vested in the Government, and historical grants and revenue records must explicitly specify inclusion of river beds to establish ownership.

1. In this case, the plaintiff, as owner of Shrotriem village of Kilianur, asked for a declaration that a portion of the bed of the Kusasthalai River belonged to him and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his enjoyment thereof. The defendants Nos. 1 to 14 are the ryos of the neighbouring village of Patraipur-rambadur; the 15th defendant is the Secretary of State for India.

2. The District Munsif dismissed the suit. On appeal the District Judge gave a decree for the plaintiff. The defendants appeal against the decree. We think the appeal must be allowed on the ground that the plaintiff is not the owner of the portion of the river bed claimed by him. In this Presidency, the beds of river are ordinarily vested in Government, as pointed out by Sundara Aiyar, J., in the recent case of Chockalingam Pillai v. Emperor (1912) 1 M.W.N. 119 : 11 M.L.T. 162 : 13 Ind. Cas. 819 : 13 Cr. L.J. 131. See also Section 2 of Act III of 1905 and Kundukuri Mahalakshmama Garu v. The Secretary of State for India 34 M. 295 at p. 303 : 1 M.W.N. 595 : 8 M.L.T. 389 : 20 M.L.J. 823 : 8 Ind. Cas. 67.

3. It is, therefore, necessary for the plaintiff to show that the portion of the river-bed in dispute belongs to him. The plaintiffs title rests on the grant Exhibit F., made to his predecessor-in title in 1802 and on the Inam title-deed Exhibit H. issued in 1879.

4. The former recites the reason for the grant as follows:

The Settlement of a permanent land tax on the lands of Honble Companys Jagir having rendered the continuance of the office of Nattawar unnecessary, the Governor in Council has abolished that office and the immunities attached thereto; the Governor in Council has at the same time been pleased favourably to consider the claims of the present incumbents in the office of Nattawar, whose interests are affected by the abolition of that office, and has been pleased to resolve that their Shrotriem lands shall be continued to them and their heire. It then goes on: "In consequence of the foregoing resolution and of your having performed the duties of the Nattawar for a period of time, the Governor in Council confers on you the village of Kilianur and three other villages, on Shrotriem tenure subject to a certain quit rent and with a provision that it would revert to Government on alienation or on failure of legal heirs". This was confirmed by the issue of the Inam title-deed (Exhibit H) in 1879 whereby the Inam Commissioner says: I acknowledge your title to a personal inam consisting of the right to the Government Revenue on land claimed to be 28.30 acres of dry and 304.93 acres of wet land situate in the Shrotriem village of Kilianur." In the margin, the words "beside poramboke" are written. It is to be observed that in neither of these documents are any boundaries specified nor is there any mention of the river or river-bed. The plaintiffs case, briefly stated, is, that the revenue village was granted to the villager, means everything which was at the time of the grant treated by Government as belonging to the village and that the Government measurement and survey accounts both before and after the grant show the portion of the river-bed, now in dispute, as belonging to the village. We do not think that this argument is sufficient to establish the plaintiffs title. The river is a broad one, the sandy bad of which, like that of most Indian rivers, is dry during the greater part of the year. It forms, as it were, a natural boundary between Kilianur on the west and other villages on the east. No doubt, in the Tarabadi or measurement account of 1777 (Exhibit J.), 24 3/8 cawnies out of the total area of the village are shown as taken up by the river. But the owners account also shows the area in the village occupied by the village temple, the village site with its 25 houses, the village threshing floors and so forth.

5. In order to understand these accounts, it must be remembered that the whole country was then as now div