VENKATARAMA SIVAN Vs. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA IN COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR OF TANJORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These second appeals are brought against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam confirming the judgment of the District Munsif of Valangiman dismissing two suits instituted against the Secretary of State for India in Council for the recovery of portions of poramboke land comprised in Survey No. 95/2 corresponding to paimash N. 809 in the village of Govindapuram from which the plaintiffs were evicted by order of Government officers under the provisions of Act III of 1905, and for damages for the unlawful felling of trees standing upon the said land.

(2.) The village of Govindapuram is a whole inam village granted in 1809 by Pratap Singh Rajah Saheb, one of the former rulers of Tanjore. The entire village was granted to the inamdars " in free tenure, exempt entirely from payment of revenue or rent," which is the meaning of sarvamanyam. The original grant is not available but we have the title-deed (Ex. E) issued by the Inam Commissioner in 1865, wherein the grantee s title was acknowledged by the Government to the sarvamanyam village of Govindapuram claimed to be of 84.15 acres of dry land, 216.15 acres of wet land and 54.29 acres of garden land besides poramboke. The portions alleged by the defendant to have been encroached upon by the plaintiffs are classed as Sudra rudrabhumi or cremation ground and the substantial question to be now decided is whether upon the construction of the grant these portions passed to the grantees under the words " besides poramboke".

(3.) These words occurring in similar deeds of grant have been the subject of Judicial interpretation and in Venkataratnammah v. Secretary of State (1912) I.L.R. 37 M 366 (f.n.) Benson and Sundara Aiyar, JJ., laid down that the effect to be given to them must depend on the evidence available in each case and the circumstances attending the grant. In the case that they were then considering, they held that as the stream in question was not a large one and was not connected with any system of irrigation maintained by Government and as the British Government had shown no intention at any time to derogate from the original grant, the channel, must belong together with other poramboke to the inamdar. At the same time, the learned Judges cited the case of Narayanaswami Naidu v. Secretary of State for India (1912) 24 M.L.J. 36 and expressed their concurrence with the view therein taken of the meaning of the words "besides poramboke," i.e., that they should not be interpreted as an acknowledgment by the Government of India of the inamdar s title to all kinds of poramboke In Narayanasami Naidu v. Secretary of State for India (1912) 24. M.L.J. 36 Benson and Bakewell, JJ., observed that " it could never be supposed that the Government, in making a grant as a reward for services rendered included in the grant the property of private persons, or the communal property of the villagers such as temples, threshing floors, cattle-stands, burning-grounds or the like, or public roads, simply because they are included in the area of the village as shown in the village and survey accounts; and are not in terms excepted from the grant," In the village of Govindapuram we find from reference to the Inam Register, Ex. XX, that, the entire area of the village being 441 acres 25 cents, 354 acres 99 cents consisted, at the time when the register was written up, of wet and dry fields, topes and gardens leaving 86 acres 26 cents to be deducted for poramboke. Below this there is a note that the poramboke consists of houses and backyards about 44 acres 37 guntas and 5 annas in local measure, and pathways, roads, irrigation channels, tanks, river, sites of pagodas, burning- ground, etc.