GUTTA VENKAYYA Vs. PUNYAMURTHULA VENKATA RATTAMMA (DIED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Jackson. The decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit was confirmed by the Subordinate Judge. In second appeal to this Court, the plaintiff succeeded. The Munsiff as well as the Subordinate Judge found that the defendants have no occupancy rights either under the Estates Land Act or independent of it, but nevertheless dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff did not make out a right to eject. In second appeal, Mr. Justice Jackson accepted the findings of the lower Courts in regard to occupancy rights both within and outside the Act, but differing from the lower Courts held that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for possession.

(2.) We have heard an argument from Mr. Venkataramana Rao on the question whether the plaintiff has or has not a right to eject, granting that the defendants are bound by the findings in regard to occupancy rights. On this point, on account of the course we propose to adopt, we wish to express no opinion at present. It is contended for the defendants that on the question of occupancy rights, the findings of the lower appellate Court as they stand, cannot be accepted. The first question in regard to those rights, which the learned Subordinate Judge had to decide was, was the grant made to the inamdar, the plaintiff's ancestor, of both the warams or of melwaram alone? The learned Subordinate Judge whose finding on a question of fact is final, starts the discussion of the evidence with a wrong statement of the law. He says that there is a presumption that an inam grant comprises both the melwaram and the kudiwaram. This is how he states the law: The decisions of the Privy Council reported in Suryanarayana V/s. Pothanna (1918) 36 M.L.J. 585: L.R. 45 I.A. 209: I.L.R. 41 Mad. 1012 (P.C.) and Upadrashta Venkata Sastrulu V/s. Divi Sitharamudu (1919) 37 M.L.J. 42: L.R. 46 I.A. 123 at 128: I.L.R. 43 Mad. 166 (P.C.) are clear authorities to show that the presumption of law in the case of an inam grant was that both melwaram and kudiwaram were granted. These two decisions were discussed in the Full Bench ruling in Muthu Goundan V/s. Perumal Iyen and the same conclusions were arrived at. It lay, therefore, on the defendants who set up occupancy rights that only the melwaram was given to the original grantee and that they had permanent rights of occupancy in the lands. Such a presumption of law is not rebutted in this case.

(3.) This was the view of the law taken at that time by the Madras High Court and the Subordinate Judge was bound to give effect to that view. He is not therefore to blame for the course he adopted. But since then, the Privy Council has clearly held, that the view taken by our Court, in the Full Bench case referred to by the Subordinate Judge, is wrong. In Sivaprakasa V/s. Veeramareddi (1922) 43 M.L.J. 640: L.R. 49 I.A. 286: I.L.R. 45 Mad. 548 (P.C) the Judicial Committee laid down the law thus in unequivocal terms: It will be noticed that neither in the case of Suryanarayana V/s. Pothanna (1918) 36 M.L.J. 585: L.R. 45 I.A. 209: I.L.R. 41 Mad. 1012 (P.C.) nor in Sethuratnam Aiyar V/s. Venkatachala Goundan (1919) 38 M.L.J. 476: L.R. 47 I.A. 76: I.L.R. 43 Mad. 537 (P.C) is there a suggestion of a presumption in favour of the inamdar or pattadar on the one side or of the ryot on the other. It was further distinctly pointed out in Upadrashta Ven-kata Sastrulu V/s. Divi Sitharamudu (1919) 37 M.L.J. 42: L.R. 46 I.A. 123 at 128: I.L.R. 43 Mad. 166 (P.C.) the passage already cited that each case must be considered on its own facts. A Full Bench of the Madras High Court, however, has in a recent case (Muthu Goundan V/s. Perumal Iyen held that underlying the exposition ? of their Lordships such an initial presumption is to be inferred. Their Lord ships cannot help observing that in drawing this inference the learned Judges are clearly in error. Each case must be dealt with upon its own facts, with special regard to the evidence and circumstances therein.