SWAMINATHA MUDALI Vs. MSARAVANA MUDALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these 61 connected second appeals the appellants are the principal defendants in the suits. The suits were brought in ejectment, the appellants being treated as having been sub- tenants from year to year of persons who owned rights in the lands as grantees of lease rights under the East India Company under a grant of 1801; that grant being a grant of lease rights for 99 years. After that grant expired in January 1900 the plaintiffs became direct lessees of the Government (from the date of the expiry of the prior grant) another term of 99 years. The prior grant of 1801 is evidenced by the indenture Exhibit P. while the new grant of 1904 is evidenced by the indenture Exhibit A.

(2.) The following facts may be set out to understand the contentions on both sides: The East India Company claimed to be owners of the lands in dispute in January 1901. It appears from the Chingleput Manual that in 1760 a grant was made to the East India Company of the Chingleput District by the Nawab Muhamad Ali as Jagir or estate and that the grant was confirmed in 1763. This word Jagir is a word of very undefined signification, but as regards the particular lands in dispute the Eist India Company considered themselves to be the owners. Soon after January 1801 the Company became the Sovereign power for the territories in which these lands were situated and it is of course absurd to speak of them thereafter as Jagirdars of these lands under themselves or to speak of these lands as Jaghire estate.

(3.) Now the lease of 1801 under Exhibit P was made to two gentlemen, Messrs. Bosbuck and Abbott who seem to have already, (presumably with the company s permission), almost completed a brick building on a portion of the 300 cawnies of the leased lands and seem to have effected other improvements. The material portion of this document Exhibit P are to the following effect: 1. The lessees and their heirs and assigns, etc., were entitled " to have hold, use, occupy, possess and enjoy the leased lands," with all benefits, and advantages" at a yearly rent of Rs. 1,575 in consideration of a small premium of five pagodas paid them and the payment of additional premia of Rs. 105 to be paid at the end of every thirty years. (2) The lessees, &c. " shall not do or cause anything to be done upon the leased premises" " which shall grow to the annoyance, grievance or damage of the said company, their tenants or the inhabitants or their bounds." (3) If the lessees, or their heirs or assigns, etc., shall commit breach of any of the covenants, the Company may " re-enter" upon the leased premises " or any part thereof in the name of the whole" and "have again to possess and enjoy the same." Subsequently, by successive assignments the right under Exhibit P which I shall call grant-ownership passed in 1816 to a Mudaliar belonging to the well- knowa Manali family. See Exhibit Q. Since then this grant-ownership has remained either with the members of the Manali family or with the members of a family connected with them by marriage and at the time of the expiry of the lease in January 1900 the grant ownership was vested in Manali Ramakrishna Mudali, the father of the present plaintiffs.