The Secretary of State for India in Council vs Ragunatha 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 Trichinopoly 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 the plaintiff''s title was, therefore, established. But he

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

possession as against the plaintiff for 12 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 on 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 the 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 area in the village and cultivated wet area, but it acknowledges the

inamdar''s title to the whole village of Kadiakurchi (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 Papala Narayansawmi Naidu v. Pensalani Kanniappa Naidu 14 Ind.

Cas. 261 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 burning 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 P and H. Government by 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 several 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

several 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. Kannapalli

Venkataratnammal 23 M.L.J. 109 and was decided by Benson and Sundara Iyer JJ. There the question was, whether certain 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 on 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 Sitaramraz, 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 Lakkimidi.... Bath 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 the case of Papala Narnyansawmi Naidu v.

Pensalani Kanniappa Naidu 14 Ind. Cas. 261 was also a party to this latter 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 bad of the river Cauvery, 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 when there are high floods, is it

included in the ''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 unassessed 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 Papala Narayansawmi Naidu v. Pensalani Kanniappa Naidu 14 Ind. Cas. 261. 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 Cauvery and not ordinary uncultivated poramboke,

(b) is an island enclosed by two streams of the Cauvery 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 Cauvery 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 the padugai must also be

treated as part of the river-bed. See paragraph 6 of the Munsif''s judgment. The contention that the 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 Cauvery river is only on the northern side of it, there is a small irrigation channel called the Elantha Voithalai 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 Punjem, padugai garden

or merely padugai while the sandy river-bed is known as the 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

riverbed 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 liver 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 padugais within their

limits"" and padugais are described as padugai waste. In Exhibit VI, it is said ""the Karnam of Kadiakurchi 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 VII, in

describing the boundaries of several padugai, they are described as south of the Cauvery. If the padugai is part of the Cauvery river-bed, it cannot

be described as south of the Cauvery. Exhibit F, prepared in 1877 in accordance with the inam preliminary statement prepared before 1864,

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

of the plaint padugai, while the Elantha Voithalai channel is stated to be situated south of this padugai. The Revenue Inspector, examined as the 9th

witness for the Government, says there was a padugai between the flood bank and the Cauvery.

This is almost conclusive to show that the padugai is not part of the Cauvery river-bed but it is the alluvial strip of land between the flood bank

and the Cauvery river-bed. This strip of land is, of course, distinctly higher in level than the sandy river-bed, though lower than the flood bank and

can never be mistaken for the river-bed itself. We have no hesitation, therefore, in finding that the limits of the Cauvery 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 Papala Narayansawami Naidu v. Pensalani

Kunniappa Naidu 14 Ind. Cas. 261 mast 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 flood bank and the sandy bed of the stream. I have no doubt it is included in the Government grant. I

express no opinion on the question whether the inamdar is entitled to any portion of the bed proper or the sandy river-bed. u/s 82, Civil Procedure

Code, we fix a period of two months for the satisfaction of the decree for costs.