MANIAPPA UDAYAM Vs. SABAPATHI ASARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original suit was for recovery of the plaint property, Survey Field No. 12/1, measuring about 2 1/2 acres. The plaintiffs claim was by virtue of a long possession and prescriptive title, the defendants claim in virtue of a patta issued by Government. Either the land or the assessment of the land constituted a blacksmith inam, but neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants belong to the family of the original holders of the inam. On a decision as to which constituted the inam rests the decision of the case.

(2.) The first Court recorded a finding that the inam consisted of the assessment only. The lower Appellate Court accepted that finding in one part of its judgment, para. 4, and in another part, para. 3, remarked that that the land formed part of the blacksmith inam cannot be denied. It is argued that in the latter sentence, the lower Appellate Court is using language loosely, but I am not able to accept that argument. The whole of the discussion in para. 3 of its judgment is with reference to possession and enjoyment of the land and the conclusion is that plaintiffs and their predecessors were in possession and enjoyment of the land for over 12 years prior to suit, having been let into possession because they were doing blacksmith's service for the village so that the enjoyment of the land was by way of remuneration for the service. The reasonable deduction from, such a letting into possession would be that the land itself was the inam. The findings of the lower Appellate Court, therefore, present some inconsistency on this vital point.

(3.) It is argued that the lower Courts have not decided this issue on evidence, but ignoring the evidence about it, have decided it on a pure surmise drawn from a consideration of the Board's Standing Orders. The lower Appellate Court simply accepts the argument of the trial Court on this point the trial Court's argument is contained in para. 15 of the judgment, and it merely amounts to this, that since the Board's Standing Orders lay down that when Government proposes to resume land which is an inam the order shall be passed not by the Collector but by the Board of Revenue, and that since in this case the Collector passed the order, it must be taken that the Government did not intend to and did not resume the land. The order of resumption is Ex. V, dated 23 July, 1919. It is by the Collector and directs that "the resumed fields will be fully assessed and the assessment...paid...to Urali Asari, (that is, the father of the second plaintiff) the senior member of the working incumbents," and that "Iyan paita should issue in the names of the occupancy owner." I, think, the lower Courts have misunderstood the Board's Standing Orders by confining their attention to Sub-section (3) of Order LV without considering the Sub-section (2). The latter lays down that in a case of inam land being resumed, the Collector has first to resume the land and then may adopt one of two alternatives either direct the assessment to be credited to general revenues or direct that it be paid to the working incumbent. The latter procedure is exactly that which has been adopted in Ex. V as I read it, and it appears to me clear that the order Ex. V was passed under this section. It is true that Sub-section (3) does set out what is contained in para. 15 of the trial Court's judgment; but it obviously means that in ordinary cases the Collector shall assume that the working incumbent is entitled only to the assessment, and that only if he thinks the working incumbent ought to have the land also, thus ousting the persons in occupation he shall report to the Board of Revenue for orders. That is, in a case of inam land the Collector can resume it and grant the assessment to the working incumbent and the land to the persons in occupation; but if he wishes to oust the persons in occupation and put in the working incumbent, he must report the case to the Board. It is obvious from Ex. V that the Collector adopted the former procedure as set out in Sub-section (2). He gave the assessment to the working incumbent and issued Iyan patta to the occupancy owners and it appears in fact from Ex. IV (a) that the patta was issued to the defendants as occupancy owners. It appears to me, therefore, a clear case of resumption of the land and not merely of the assessment and that the lower Courts have committed a grave error of fact in this respect.