SUBRAMANIA AIYAR ALIAS GURUMURTHI AIYAR Vs. ONNAPPA GOUNDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant. His ancestors got a grant of lands as Bhudanam from the Maharaja of Mysore in 1743 for the support of a Chatram at Dindigul, the Mysore dynasty having then been the ruling power in that part of the country. That grant, Exhibit A, describes the grantor as the Lord of the Earth (Prithivisam- rajyam) and it grants these plaint lands in Giriyampatti village with Ashtabogam (8 kinds of enjoyment) and 10 kinds of rights (with water, trees, minerals, etc.) Having regard to the recent decisions of the Privy Council in Suryanarayana v. Patanna (1917) I.L.R. 41 Mad. 1012 and Upadrashta Venkata Sastrulu v. Divi Sitaramudu (1913) I.L.R. 48 Mad. 166 there is no presumption that the grant was only of the melwaram in these lands, and on the other hand, the grant is almost conclusive that the soil in the lands themselves was made a gift of to the plaintiff s ancestor, In other words it was a nilamanibham and not a thirvamnibham grant.

(2.) As the chatram was not properly conducted, the Government resumed the manibham between 1899-1901. The resumption, was not of the melwaram right alone but of the manibham itself, that is the entire lands, and the Government was entitled to so resume. The lands were transferred from manibham to ayan at the disposal of the Government and the lands thus became ryotwari lands. Kayam pattah was issued for the purpose of cultivation (See Ex. TT) to the plaintiff for 548 acres 46 cents, the same being the area of the resumed lands.

(3.) At the time of the resumption the tenants under the plaintiff were in actual occupation of the lands. The plaint lands are about 107 acres, out of the total area resumed by the Government. The tenants are the defendants.