The Secretary of State for India in Council vs Raghunatha Thathachariar

Sadasiva Aiyar, J.—The appellant is the Secretary of State for India in Council. The suit as amended was for possession of Padugai land on

the banks of the Cauvery from the defendant (Appellant). The District Munsif found that the whole village of Kadiakurichi in the Trichniopoly Taluk

belonged to the plaintiff as Inamdar, that the grant to the Plaintiff included Poramboke land and the plaint land bounded on the north by the

Cauvery stream bed was included in the Poramboke granted to the Plaintiff and that ^he Plaintiff''s title was therefore established. Rut he dismissed

the suit on the ground that the Government by j occasionally cutting branches from the trees standing on the ground, had been in adverse

possession as against the plaintiff for twelve years before suit, and the plaintiff''s suit was therefore barred. On appeal the learned District Judge

confirmed the Munsif''s finding as to title but differed on the question of adverse possession and holding that the plaintiff was exercising acts of

ownership while allowing the Government merely to exercise the easement of cutting branches of trees for putting twig bunds occasionally, decreed

the suit for possession. Hence this appeal. On the question of possession which is a question of fact there is no ground for interference in second

appeal. The land was jungle land. Most of the trees growing in it were not timber or fruit trees and the fruit of the two tamarind trees growing on

the land used to be eaten up by wild monkeys. There is evidence showing, that the plaintiff was cutting branches of trees for fuel and gathering

leaves for manure. ''The really important question is therefore the question of title which both courts have found in the plaintiff''s favour. The inam

title-deed, Exhibit C. is quite clear, and it grants not only the cultivated dry area in the village and the cultivated wet area but it acknowledges the

inamdars title to the whole village of Kadayakurichi (both wet and dry areas) ""besides Poramboke"". The meaning of this term "" besides

Poramboke ""has been the subject of consideration in two recent cases in this court. In S.A. No. 1445 of 1910 (1912) 24 M.L.J. 36 a case from

the Chingleput District, decided by Benson and Bakewell JJ. the learned Judges said ""these words, ''besides Poramboke'' would indicate a right to

Poramboke land, such as unassessed waste, but it could not include all Porambokes since that word includes all kinds of communal property such

as burying grounds, temple sites, threshing floors, and so forth and also public roads (called road poramboke) and rivers (called river

poramboke)."" ""It is unreasonable to suppose that in a grant such as is evidenced by exhibits F and H, Government were describing the grant as the

grant of the ""village"" in exhibit F, or by using the words ''besides Poramboke'' in Exhibit H intended by such general terms to assign away a portion

of the river bed and thus introduce a divided ownership and control over it and deprive themselves of the power of properly discharging their

duties in connection with the irrigation dependent on the river. There is no specific grant of the river-bed and we do not think that the general terms

used should be construed as involving such a grant."" It is clear to us that all that was decided in this case is that the grant of Poramboke should not

be held to include grant of river beds and the like communal property such as channel beds, burying grounds, temple sites etc. That the grant of

poramboke land must include the grant of unassessed waste which is not communal property and which has nothing to do with the control of

irrigation sources is admitted by the learned judges. The other case is that of the Secretary of State v. Kannepalli Venkataratnammah (1912) 23

M.L.J. 109 and was decided by Benson and Sundara Aiyar JJ. There the question was whether channel beds and tanks in a village granted as a

whole Inam in the Ganjam District belonged to the Inamdar as included in the title deed which used the words ''besides poramboke'' after

describing the areas of the dry and wet lands in the village. The learned Judges say ""The effect to be given to the insertion of the words ''besides

poramboke'' must depend upon the evidence available in each case and the circumstances attending the grant. In this case it is extremely unlikely

that when the whole of the village was granted in 1767 by Sitaramaraz it was not intended to convey to the grantee all the waste and Porambokes

in the village. The British Government accepted that grant and recognised the Inamdar''s title under it. The channel was not one which passed

through any Government property before it reached the village of Lakkiindiddi....

Both the learned District Judges who dealt with the case proceeded on the footing that the channel and other Poramboke in the village belonged to

the Inamdar. On the whole we see no reason to dissent from that conclusion."" It will be seen that one of the learned judges who decided Second

Appeal No. 1445 of 1910 (1912) 24 M.L.J. 36 was also a party to this later decision and on the facts of the latter case held that even channels

and tanks did pass by the grant of Poramboke under the title deed. The respondent''s (plaintiff''s) learned vakil in this case did not contend that if

the plaint land was part of the bed of the river Cauveri he could claim title to it as part of the village granted to him. Assuming for the moment that it

is not part of the river bed but waste land on the bank of the river occasionally liable to have water standing on it when there are high floods, is it

included in Poramboke granted to the plaintiff? The word ''Poramboke'' is loosely used in many senses. Whatever land does not yield revenue to

Government is usually known as Poramboke though several kinds of lands may be included in it. That ordinary un-assessed waste though

overgrown with grass or trees must be included in the grant of Poramboke seems to us to be clear even after giving the largest scope possible to

the decision in S.A. No. 1445 of 4910 (1912) 24 M.L.J. 36. The question has thus become narrowed down to this question of fact whether the

plaint land.

(a) is part of the river bed of the Cauveri and not ordinary uncultivated Poramboke.

(b) is an island enclosed by two streams of the Cauveri river dividing at the western extremity of the island and rejoining at the eastern extremity ;

or

(c) is Poramboke waste just south of the river bed which bounds it on the north, its southern boundary being the flood bank.

As regards the second contention (b) this is not mentioned in the three grounds of the memorandum of second appeal. It is clear from the

Munsif''s judgment that this plaint land was not contended to be surrounded on all sides by the Cauveri river but only on one side of it. The

contention there was that the high level grounds south of the sandy bed of the river but north of the flood bank and called Padugai must also be

treated as part of the river-bed; see paragraph 6 of the Munsif''s judgment. The contention that plaint land was bounded on both sides by the river

was advanced at the hearing of this appeal before us on the basis of the rather obscure language used by the District Judge in the first sentence of

his judgment, where he says that ""the suit relates to Padugai or island in the Cauvery. The plaint land may be loosely called an island because

though the Cauveri river is only on the northern side of it there is a small irrigation channel called the Elanthavoithalai channel running south of it

close to the flood bank. Padugai land in the Trichinopoly and Tanjore taluks means land on the lower-level bank of the river between the edge of

the sandy stream-bed and the high flood level bank. It is known as Padugai Poramboke, Padugai waste, Padugai Punjan, Padugai garden or

merely Padugai, while the sandy river bed is known as Neerodi very occasionally ; the high island (made of alluvial deposits) formed by two

branches of a river dividing and rejoining within a few yards distance might be called Padugai and such land if of small area may no doubt be

treated as part of the river bed Poramboke and may not be ordinary Poramboke waste. The plaint land is not of such a character. The only

remaining question for disposal is whether the plaint land as ordinary padugai land is waste poramboke or must be made as river bed poramboke.

The contention of the Government that not only the sandy river bed but also the higher level padugai waste up to the flood bank is part of the river

bed poramboke was unhesitatingly rejected by the learned District Judge, who has had also long experience as a revenue officer. As he says ""the

flood bank is an artificial construction not proved to exist in its present position at the time when the (Inam) register was prepared and is liable to

be shifted according to the requirements of the river conservancy."" Further, Exhibits V, VI and VIII which are reports submitted by revenue

officers, negative the defendant''s contention on this point. In Exhibit V it is said "" the Inamdars will have to improve their own padugai within their

limits "" and padugai are described as padugai waste. In Exhibit VI it is said that "" the Karnam of Kadia Kurichi states that padugai land in his village

is shown in the accounts as waste and quit rent on the taram assessment of the land at annas 6 per acre is included in the quit rent collected from

the inamdar"" If padugai was river bed, how could the quit rent be charged or any taram assessment calculated as imposed upon it? In Exhibit VIII

in describing the boundaries of several padugais, they are described as south of the Cauveri. If the padugai is part of the Cauveri river-bed it

cannot be described as south of the Cauveri. Exhibit F prepared in 1877 in accordance with the Inam preliminaay statement prepared before 1864

shows the plaint land as Poramboke immemorial. Tharasu waste padugai Poramboke No. 8 in Exhibit F is described as the Cauveri Neerodi north

of the plaint padugai, while the Elanthavoithalai channel is stated to be situated south of this padugai. The revenue officer examined as the 9th

witness for the Government says ""there was a padugai between the flood bank and the Cauveri."" This is almost conclusive to show that padugai is

not part of the Cauveri river-bed but it is the alluvial strips of land between the flood bank and the Cauveri river-bed. This strip of land is of course

distinctly higher in level than the sandy river bed, though lower in level than the Hood bank and can never be mistaken for the river-bed itself. We

have no hesitation therefore in finding that the limits of the Cauveri river bed Poramboke are the limits of the sandy Neerodi river bed and that the

Padugai rising up from the river bed and up to the flood bank is not part of the river bed, and if it has been lying waste, is included in those

Poramboke lands which, even according to the decision in S.A. No. 1445 of 1910, must pass to the grantee under the expression ""besides

Poramboke"" in the Inam title deed. The result is that the second appeal is dismissed with costs.

Sankaran Nair, J.

I concur. The land in suit lies between the Hood bank and the sandy bed of the stream. I have no doubt it is included in the Government grant. I

express no opinion as to whether the Inamdar is entitled to any portion of the bed proper or the sandy river bed. u/s 82 CPC we fix a period of 2

months for the satisfaction of the decree for costs.