Javvadi Soorayya and Others vs Tavvala Surya Rao Naidu and Others

Spencer, J.—The order sought to be revised is an order of the Subordinate Judge of Ellore remanding certain suits for disposal by the

District Munsif. The question whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try these suits, which were for rent and ejectment of tenants, depends ea

the question whether the Agraharam of Pentapad in the Zemindari of Nuzvid was an ""estate"" within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act.

The Subordinate Judge has found that the grant in question was a grant of both melvaram and kudivaram. In this case the original grant is before us

and is matked as Exhibit D. It purports to be a grant by Apparayanim Garu, Zemindar of Nuzvid, ui the year 1744 6f the Mauza village of Patha

Pen-taped to a Brahmin named Tirumalasingaracharyulu Ayyavarlam Garu.

Reliance is placed for the appellants on the fact that this is a grant to a Brahmin and that it is described as a Mauza village; also on the fact that in

Exhibit IX, an abstract of revenue collections in the years 1777 to 1781, the existence of 300 inhabitants is mentioned, also that there was a

division of produce between the Brahmin Agraharamdars, and the cultivators; also that in Exhibit O, which is a statement made by Agraharamdars

before the Imam Commissioner, the Agraharamdars disclaimed any interest in the communal lands of the village : and lastly on the mention in

Exhibit XVI (j) of 23 kadims among the population of the village.

As regards the existence of 300 inhafoi-tants 33 years after the grant, the words of the Privy Council in Suryanarayana v. Patanna 48 Ind. Cas.

689are most apposite. They are these: ""It is not proved, nor is there any evidence to suggest, that at the date of the grant there were any tenants in

the village holding lands with any rights of occupancy by custom or otherwise."" In other words, the grant or a whole village will not be presumed to

be the grant only of melwaram interest unless it is shown that the kudiwvram interest was already in the hands of some one else than the dpnee.

The division of produce between the agraharamdars and the cultivators throws light on the system then prevalent of paying kist to the land owner,

but is no indication whether the tenant had or had not occupancy rights. Mr. Wilson''s definition in his Glossary of the word ""Mauza"" has been

referred to in several decisions. It is ""a village, understanding by that term one or more clusters of habitations, and all the lands belonging to their

proprietary inhabitants."" It is not clear whether the word ""proprietary"" is intended to refer to the habitations or to the lands.

In Upadrasta Venkata Sastrulu v. Devi Sitaramudu 24 Ind. Cas. 22, Sadasiva Aiyar, J., interpreted Mauza village as meaning a village in which

there were proprietors owning cultivable lands. The value to be attached to the learned Judge''s definition has been considerably diminished by the

remarks of the Judicial Committee in the appeal in Upadrashta Venkata Sastrulu v. Divi Seetharamudu 51 Ind. Cas. 304 when Sadasiva Aiyar,

J''s. decision was reversed. That case was one of a grant of an inam called Billapadu agraharam in 1748 by the same Zemindar of Nuzvid who was

the donor in the present case. The latest pronouncement regarding the meaning of expression ""Mauza"" is that of the learned Chief Justice in

Subrahmanya Sumayajulu v. Seethayya 70 Ind. Cas. 729. He observed that on the material before him it was not possible to say that this word

necessarily imported the meaning that there were occupancy raiyats on the land, With this observation I respectfully agree, and I apply it to the

same expression occurring in the present case.

The word ""kadim"" is defined by Mr. Wilson as ""an old inhabitant of a village, the holding by hereditary descent."" In the Glossary to the 5th

report ""kadim"" is defined as a ""headman,"" The word is uncommon so far as my experience goes. Rut it does not seem to convey anything as to the

existence of occupancy rights. On the other hand, a large number of muchallikas (Exhibits A.Q.F.J.S.K.W. series) have been filed in these suits in

which the tenants agree to vacate their holdings on the expiry of the term of their tenancy. There is no express admission that the tenants have no

jiroyiti rights as there was in the muchallikas m Suryanamyana v. Patanna 48 Ind. Cas. 689 But their undertakings to quit the lands at the end of

their term implies absence of occupancy lights. There is also the farther fact referred to by the Subordinate Judge that in some cases where lands

have been acquired by the Government, compensation has been paid to the agrahramdars as shown in Exhibit O series, without any claim being

made by the tenants to share in such compensation. For these reasons, I consider that the lower Court was right in deciding that the jurisdiction of

the Civil Courts has not been ousted by Section 189 of the Madras Estates Land Act.

The civil revision petitions are, therefore, dismissed with costs.

Venkatasubba Rao, J.

I agree.