NACHIYAPPAN ALIAS KIRUKAN Vs. ALAGAPPA CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These suits were brought in ejectment and arose out of a boundary dispute between the Mahajanams of Sarvamanyam village of Kalanivasal and the ryiats of Sekkalakottai, a village in the Zemindari estate of Sivaganga. The plaintiff is the holder of a permanent cowle (Exhibit D), from the lessees of Sivaganga estate, over 150 kurukkams of land in this village. The defendants Nos. 1 to 3 are lessees of the Sivaganga estate under a lease from a former Zemindar which has now expired. They granted the plaintiff s cowle but have now no interest in these proceedings. Defendants Nob. 6 to 9 in the main appeal (Second Appeal No. 1759 of 1916) own the Dharmasanam village of Kalanivasal, by virtue of a copperplate grant of the year 1710 from the eighth Rajah of Ramnad. The defendants other than the fourth defendant are the eighth Karai Vallambaras of Kottaiyur who claim a title by a conveyance of 1883 from certain temple trustees, who themselves derived their title by transfer from the holder of a cowle, dated 1866, from Ranee Katma Nachiar, who was a Zemindarani of Sivaganga between 1863 and 1877 and had the survey of Eluvankottai Taluk made by Mr. Gompertz, a Deputy Commissioner of Survey. The rest of the defendants are persons who are alleged by the plaintiff to have trespassed on the suit lands, built houses and raised gardens under titles derived from one or other of the above parties. The Principle District Munsif of Sivaganga dismissed all the suits. The District Judge, finding that the lands in suit never formed part of Kalanivasal but all along belonged to Sekkalakottai and that possession followed title, decreed some of the suits in full, and others in p Article The points that arise for consideration in second appeal are (1) Whether on the correct construction of (he original grant (Exhibit 1) by itself or as interpreted by the razinama of 1813, the suit lands are included in, or excluded from the inam village of Kalanivasal; (2) Whether the Inam Commissioner s decision in 1865 is binding on the parties to this suit and decisive of the questions of title involved; (3) Whether the decision of the Deputy Superintendent of Survey, Mr. Gompertz, in 1876 is conclusive against the Zemindar and the plaintiff who claims under him, and whether according to that decision the lands in dispute belong to Kalanivasal.

(2.) Exhibit I, in common with similar ancient grants, does not pretend to give a definite description of the boundary line confining the estate that was granted on every side. In 1710, land was of less value than it is now and boundaries were consequently more rough and ready than the needs of the present century demand. Certain boundaries are mentioned in Exhibit 1 as lying on each of the four sides of the inam. On the eastern and southern sides, which are the important boundaries for the purpose of the present dispute, only a single landmark is mentioned for each side. They are the Sekkalai Urani on the cast, and the Karai of the Karaikudi Kanomi on the south. Both of these isolated landmarks can be located with some degree of certainty but on the way in which the line is drawn to connect them depends the whole question whether the lands in dispute fall inside or outside the inam. The District Judge was in error in drawing a straight line between the above said landmarks and in making deductions on the hypothesis that the line ran straight from one to the other. It should have been obvious to him, if he had reflected, that this procedure of drawing straight lines from point to point must result in the enclosed area ending in points in the direction of each of the four quarters of the compass, whereas the evidence of enjoyment shows that the boundary did not run in such straight lines. If the District Judge had drawn lines directly from west to east through the landmarks mentioned as points on the northern and southern boundaries, and lines directly from north to south through the landmarks on the eastern and western boundaries, he would probably have at rived nearer to a correct solution; but this procedure would result in the inclusion not only of the whole of the disputed area but also a large slice of what are admittedly Zemindari lands. The original copperplate thus contains no proof in favour of the plaintiff s contention that the suit lands were excluded from the grant.

(3.) The razinama of 1813 purported to be an arrangement between the Vallambars of Kottaiyur and the Dharmasanam Mahajanams of Kalanivasal. It was written on a cadjan document which the Inam Commissioner rejected as not genuine. The Zemindar was not a party to it and although there is a statement in Exhibit 4 that four stones were planted to demarcate the boundary, it is clear from the judgment of the District Munsif, who himself made a local inspection, that the identity of those stores cannot be ascertained at the present day. The statement made by the inamdars of Kalanivasal in 1862 at the inam enquiry held by Mr. Taylor, which refers to the decision of 1813 and, as the District Judge observes, re-affirmed that decision, whatever its terms were, described the eastern boundary as "running west of the western ridge of Umbalam Kollai of Perichi Urani and running south to the north east of Kolluthunni Kaduvetty Sekkattayan Punjai and thence south-east to the Karaikudi road running south to north".