PRASANNA CHIDAMBARA REDDIAR Vs. NAGAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff, Nagammal, for a declaration that the defendant had no right to bring the holding known as Palamaram Punja to sale for arrears of rent and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from bringing the suit property to sale. Her main allegation was that the holding in question was an enfranchised Thandal Manyam, that the plaintiff had to pay quit rent to Government for it as such and that the mittadar had no right to collect rent from her. The plea of the mittadar defendant was that the land was really ryoti land and not Government inam. The first Court dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned District Judge, as I read his judgment, has not recorded any definite finding on the real question that arises in the case.

(2.) Paragraph 3 of his judgment begins as follows: The bulk of the lower Court's judgment deals with the question whether the suit land was originally granted to the plaintiffs predecessor-in-title as inam for Tandal service. I do not propose to go into this question at any length.

(3.) Later on, he observes in the same paragraph: In the result, the lower Court came to the rather curious conclusion that, although the defendant had not discharged the burden cast on him of proving that the suit land was included in the estate at the time when it was permanently settled by Government on his predecessor, yet, on the strength of the chittas produced by the defendant to show that the plaintiff and her predecessor-in-title had paid rent to the mittadar, it must be held that the land was ryoti land and not Government inam.