JAVADI SOORAYYA Vs. TAVVALA SURYA RAO NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order sought to be revised is an order of the Subordinate Judge of Ellore remanding certain suits for disposal by the District Munsif. The question whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try these suits, which were for rent and ejectment of tenants depends on the question whether the Agraharam of Pentapad in the Zamindari of Nuzwid was an estate within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act. The Subordinate Judge has found that the grant in question was a grant of both Melvaram and Kudivaram. In this case the original grant is before us and is marked as Ex. D. It purports to be a grant by Apparayanimgaru, Zamindar of Nuzwid in the year 1744 of the Mouza village of Patha Pentapad to a Brahmin named Tirumalasingaracharyulu Ayyavarlamgaru.

(2.) Reliance is placed for the appellants on the fact that this is a grant to a Brahmin and that it is described as a Mauza village, also on the fact that in Ex. IX, an abstract of Revenue collections in the years 1777 to 1781, the existence of 300 inhabitants is mentioned; also that there was a division of produce between the Brahmin Agraharamdars, and the cultivators; also that in Ex. O which is a statement made by Agraharamdars before the Inam Commissioner, the Agraharamdars disclaimed any interest in the communal lands of the village ; and lastly on the mention in Ex. XV (j) of 23 kadiams among the population of the village.

(3.) As regards the existence of 300 inhabitants 33 years after the grant, the words of the Privy Council in Suryanarayana V/s. Pattanna (1918) I.L.R. 41 Mad. 1012 at p. 1020 : 36 M.L.J. 585 (P.C.) are most apposite. They are these : "It is not proved, nor is there any evidence to suggest, that at the date of the grant there were any tenants in the village holding lands with any rights of occupancy by custom or otherwise. "In other words, the grant of a whole village will not be presumed to be the grant only of melwaram interest unless it is shown that the kudivaram interest was already in the hands of some one else than the donee. The division of produce between the Agraharamdars and the cultivators throws light on the system then prevalent of paying kist to the land owner, but is no indication whether the tenant had or had not occupancy rights. Mr. Wilson's definition in his Glossory of the word "Mouza" has been referred to in several decisions. It is "a village, understanding by that term one or more clusters of habitations, and all the lands belonging to their proprietary inhabitants." It is not clear whether the word "proprietary" is intended to refer to the habitations or to the lands.