The word "jagir" in Section 3 (2) (c) of the Estates Land Act is used in a limited sense, referring to grants made by the ruling sovereign to individuals who were interposed between the sovereign and the actual cultivator, and who were often tasked with collecting revenue and maintaining order.

Ramesam, J.

1. This is a suit by the plaintiff to eject defendants from the suit lands which are situate in Puliyampatti village, Chingleput District and for mesne profits. The District Judge decreed the suit in respect of items 2 and 3, and as to item 1 he found that the suit is "premature. The defendants appeal in respect of items 2 and 3 and there Is a memorandum of objections by the plaintiff in respect of item 1. We have first to consider the case as regards items 2 and 3. These are Survey Nos. 986 and 985.

2. Puliyampatti village in which the suit lands are situate and Nombal village together constituted what the plaintiff describes as a sarva inam jagir, and it will be convenient now to refer to the history of this sarva inam jagir.

3. The District of Chingleput was under the sovereignty of the Nawab of Carnatic up to the year 1763. In that year the Nawab made a grant of these two villages to a lady of the family Khairun-Nissa Begum. Subsequently in the same year 16th October 1763, the Nawab gave a lease of the greater portion of the Chingleput District to the East India Company generally referred to as "the jagir". This grant of the Nawab in 1763 was afterwards confirmed by the Moghul Emperor who was still regarded as the overlord of the Nawab in 1768. The East India Company left the jagir in the management of the Nawab himself for some time. But in 1780 the company took the management into their own hands: vide Manual of Standing Information for the Madras Presidency, Ch. 2. p. 44 and p. 54. The facts appear from other books of reference bearing on the History of the Madras Presidency: vide Macleans Manual of the Administration of Madras, Vol. 1, p. 159 (186), and 65. Aitchisons Vol. 3, p. 378 under Jagir Sircar under the heading Jah. Treaties, Vol. 10, p. 36. From the beginning of Fasli 1191, the villages were leased out on amani system to an Armenian named Khaja Chamier by the Nawab who had purchased the two villages In the year 1779 the Nawab seems to have borrowed a large sum of money from the said Khaja Chamier and in February 1782, he mortgaged the two villages to the said Khaja Chamier for the discharge of his debt: vide Exs. 1 and 1 (a). About the year 1784 the East India Company leased the lands granted to them to one C. Ponnappa Mudaliar. In obtaining possesion of the lands leased out to him, he also attempted to take possession of the two villages which had been mortgaged to Khaja Chamier but he was obstructed by the said Chamier. He then made a complaint of the fact to the committee of the assigned revenues viz., Messrs. Oakley, Haliburton and Moabray. The said Chamier himself seems to have also made a representation to the same committee asserting his claim. The matter was investigated by the committee and a report was made to the Governor of Madras in Council, Lord Macartney (Ex. 2). The Government accepted the report of the committee and held that the two villages were not part of the companys jaghir and that Chamier was entitled to them. This was Ex. 2 (a).

4. Some time after there were further assignments of the revenue by the Nawab of Carnatic to the East India Company and by 1801 the East India Company became the sovereign of the whole of the Carnatic. The earlier history of these villages as set forth above also appears from the judgment of Srinivasa Ayyangar, J., in Sam v. Ramalinga Mudaliar [1917] 40 Mad, 664, and in the judgment of Coutts-Trotter, J.., (as he then was) pp. 670-1. Ever since 1782 Chamier Sultan and his successors were in possession of the two villages. In the year 1908, a suit was filed in the District Munsifs Court of Poonamallee by Mr. Sam, the then owner of the villages, to eject certain tenants. This was O.S. No. 562 of 1908. The case came up on second appeal to the High Court as S. A. No. 2037 of 1914. It was disposed of by Coutts-Trotter, J., and Srinivasa Ayyangar, J., and their judgment is reported in Sam v. Ramalinga Mudaliar [1917] 40 Mad, 664, already referred to.