VELAYUDA GURUKAL Vs. ANNAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of our learned brother, Venkatasubba Row, J., reversing the decrees of the lower Courts and dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff brought the suit for possession of property on the ground that it belonged to an Authinam. Both the lower Courts held in plaintiff's favour. But Venkatasubba Row, J., dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the recitals in the inam documents were against the claim of the plaintiff.

(2.) The point raised by the appellant before us is that the misconstruction of a document which is not a title-deed or foundation of title is not a ground for interference by the High Court in second appeal. The argument is that the original deed of grant was not in evidence in the suit and Exs. A,B,C, I and II, were only evidence in the case and the misconstruction of a document which is only a piece of evidence is not a ground for interference in second appeal. Reliance is placed upon a recent decision of the Privy Council in Midnapur Zemindary V/s. Uma Charan Mandal A.I.R. 1923 P.C. 187 (P.C). In the case Lord Sumner in delivering the judgment of their Lordships observed: The documents admitted in evidence upon that question are really historical materials, and although they have to be construed, and if possible understood, they are not to be treated as involving issues of law merely because they have to be construed. It is not as though they were being construed as instruments of title, or were contracts or statutes, or otherwise the direct foundation of rights.

(3.) In the case the question for decision was what was the date on which a particular holding began as a definite holding; and a number of documents were put in evidence which were of historical character. So far as the report goes, there is nothing to show that any document which directly related to the title of property had to be construed. In the present case the inam register and the inam patta, though they are not the original grants, yet contain the terms of the original grant and in the absence of the original grant, the inam title deed and the inam register and the statement are the foundation of the inamdar's title. It has been urged that at the time of the inam enquiry the rights of the parties as they existed at the time were acknowledged by the Inam Commissioner and the Inam Commissioner did not confer any title on the inamdar nor did he take away the right from him. In answer to this contention, Mr. T.M. Krishnaswami Iyer, urges that Coimbatore District was a part of the Mysore State and when the East India Co., defeated Hyder and Tippu and took possession of the territory, all the rights of the persons who held under Hyder and Tippu ceased to exist, as the act of conquest did away with all the rights of the inhabitants that existed at the time of the conquest. He relies upon Secretary of State V/s. Bai Raj Bai [1915] 39 Bom. 625, Arunachellam v. Venkatachalapathi Guruswamigal [1919] 43 Mad. 253 and Sethuramaswami v. Meruswami [1918] 41 Mad. 296. On the other hand the appellant's vakil relies upon Vangala Dikshatulu V/s. Vengala Gavaramma [1905] 28 Mad. 13, Cherukuri Venkanna V/s. Mantravathi Lakshmi Narayana 2 M.H.C. 327, Gannaiyan V/s. Kamakchi Ayyar [1903] 26 Mad. 339 and Narayana V/s. Chengalamma [1887] 10 Mad. 1. It is unnecessary for the purpose of this case to. decide the interesting question whether the Government made a grant of the inam to the predecessors-in-title of the plaintiff or only recognized a pre-existing title. The policy of the British Government when they acquired territory either by conquest or by cession or by any other Act of State, was not to do away altogether wit h the rights of the inhabitants in the portion of the territory acquired or ceded, but to try to act equitably in all matters and to preserve the status quo ante. It is unnecessary to discuss the question further as we are satisfied in this case that the inam documents produced in the case are such documents as would bring them within the principle of ruling in Midnapur Zemindari V/s. Uma Charan Mandal [1881] 23 Mad. 86, even if the observation of Lord Sumner is to be literally understood.