MAHARAJAH OF PITTAPURAM Vs. RAVU VENKATA MAHIPATI GANGADHARARAMARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by the Maharaja of Pithapuram to recover possession of a piece of land measuring about 40 acres, which, with buildings upon it, formed part of a maintenance grant made by the late Raja of Pithapuram to his adopted son, Ramakrishna Rao, father of defendants 1 to 4. Particulars of the litigation which arose out of that grant have been summarized in the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge and it is enough to say here that so far as the nature and legal effect of the grant are concerned it has been decided that it was for the maintenance only of Ramakrishna Rao, that it lapsed at his death and that the property is recoverable by the plaintiff as his father's heir. While adopting this position however the lower Court has given the plaintiff a decree only for the melwaram interest in the land, and it is against the decree so limited that the plaintiff appeals.

(2.) The primary question arising depends upon the provisions of the Madras Estates Land Act, whether the land is raiyati and as defined in that Act or whether it is private land. The learned Subordinate Judge has found that prior to the maintenance grant, which took place in 1882, the land was private land. But he thinks that owing to certain statements made, and orders passed at the time (19 February 1913) that a Record of Rights was prepared of the Pithapuram estate, it came to be treated as raiyati land and must be so regarded. Under Section 185 of the Act, land in an estate shall be presumed not to be private land until the contrary is shown. They show that it was private land; the plaintiff has produced certain records, Ex. C series, and has examined two witnesses, P. Ws. 1 and 2. The records cover the years 1874 to 1878 and consist of estate correspondence relating to the care of this land and the buildings upon it. They undoubtedly show that the land was not during that period under cultivation or in the hands of raiyats, but afforded a site and compound for certain buildings belonging to the Rajah. In all these records the land is referred to as Suryaraopet haveli. It is contended that the word "haveli" is the local equivalent of pannai or home-farm lands and therefore to be included in "private land" as defined in Section 3(10) of the Act. Brown's Dictionary gives "mansion, palace" as the English equivalent of this word. In Maclean's Manual of the Administration of the Madras Presidency (1893) the glossary contains the word "havelly" which it translates as "environs" and defines as the tract of country adjacent to a capital town and originally annexed to it for the supply of public establishments: afterwards came to signify lands under direct Government management; of "home-farms.

(3.) Under "home farms" we find reference to the villages round the area comprising the original grants for building: Fort Saint George, such as Chetput, Egmore, Nungambakkam, etc. These authorities do not throw much light on how this word should be understood when used in relation to zamindar's estates. But it may perhaps be taken that it was intended to denote by its use that the lands were reserved for the zamindar's personal use and were not available for grant in the ordinary way. The witnesses speak to the previous existence of buildings upon this land, and there can be no doubt that during the period to which they refer it afforded no more than a large compound for these buildings. Doubtless because it contained a suitable house, it was given by the previous Raja to his adopted son for his residence. Father and son however fell out; the adopted son went away and spent the remainder of his life in Madras and a good many years ago the buildings fell down or were demolished, and the land was divided into two portions, each cultivated by a tenant. That was the condition of affairs when the Record of Rights already referred to was prepared. The procedure for the preparation of such a record is laid down in Ch. 11 of the Act. It provides opportunities for landholders and raiyats to represent their claims and to present objections. When this land came up for registration an objection statement (Ex. 2) was made on behalf of the Raja by one of his thanedars. It appears that in the draft record the land had been described as poramboke and the objection was made that it was not poramboke but was raiyati land: It was given to the adopted son of the late Raja free of rent and it is now being used for cultivation purposes. Prays that it may be registered as subsequent inam.