CHINGI CHINNAPPA NAIDU (DEAD) Vs. MANIAM RAJU GOUNDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In dealing with this batch of Second Appeals it will be convenient to set forth the facts.. These suits relate to the ryotwari village of Muttlam in the North Arcot District. From time immemorial the ryotwari holdings were being held by the ryots excluding the trees, all the trees in the village being held under a separate tree patta by a tree pattadar. In the year 1906 the Government have changed the! policy of having separate land pattas and separate tree pattas, and the Board's standing Order No. 18 was altered as follows: Trees on occupied lands.--Subject to the exception noted below, no claim should ordinarily be made on behalf of the Government to any rights over trees growing on land held on ryotwari patta, or as inam, or as village or town house-site. Separate pattas should not be issued for the trees and where such pattas now exist the tree patta should be cancelled and the tree pattadar left to make his own arrangements with the land pattadar, if the two are different persons. "Exception.--When conditions have been expressly inserted in the patta limiting the pattadar's rights over the trees or when land has been assigned on special patta; cowle or lease with such limiting conditions, those conditions should be strictly enforced.

(2.) Reading the new rule and exception it is clear that the policy of the Government is to dispense with tree pattas and include the trees in the land pattas wherever practicable, but where not practicable the old system would continue. "The exception shows this. The suit village was re-settled in Fasli 1323. In the Settlement Register of this new settlement, which is Exhibit O (page 3), the following statement occurs: Except in the case of trees standing on land registered as poramboke tree pattas have been cancelled at re-settlement wherever practicable and the tree tax replaced by land assessment. The following poramboke revision survey fields contain topes which are held on original tree patta.

(3.) Then follows a table of survey numbers which are all admitted to be poramboke lands and the tree assessment is shown as Rs. 119-12-7. The present suits are brought by the tree pattadars for a declaration of their rights to the enjoyment of the trees on the lands included in the land pattas and therefore not poramboke and for mesne profits and damages. The claim for mesne profits and damages was not. pressed in the Lower Appellate Court and need not be pursued further. The only question that has to be discussed here is the right to the trees.