The District Board, Tanjore Represented by its President Vs. M.K. Noor Mohamed Rowther &amp; Others
to conclude that the first grant, was either of the whole village area or was expressed to be of a named village and that the area excluded had already been granted for service or other tenure.The learned trial Judge and the learned Judges of the High Court thought that the inam grant of Kunanjeri village covered by title deed No. 2156 was of a named village because in col. 21 the boundaries of the whole village were given and the whole village was described as a grain rented village. In my opinion, from this recital in Col. 21 such an inference was not justified. The description in that part was given concerning the lease that had been granted to Mudali prior to the grant and while describing the lease it had to be said that the lease was of the whole area of the village and its boundaries were stated. When the question of grant was dealt with, it was clearly stated in entry 21 that the grant was of 39V. 17M. out of an area of 40V. 12M. The more reasonable inference is that the grant was expressed in terms of areas and not in terms of the name of a village.Even when the grant is of a particular area in a village, the village has to be named; but, in my opinion, that is not complying with the conditions mentioned in Explanation 1to S. 3(2)(d) of the Act. Under the explanation in express terms a grant has to be of a village by name and if the grant is expressed in those terms and it is discovered that it does not incorporate the whole area of the village and certain area has been excluded from it, even then the grant will be deemed to be of an estate provided the area excluded has already been granted on service or other tenure or given for communal purposes. From the entries in Exhibits B-I and A-2 such an inference cannot be drawn.Obviously the case does not fall under the main part of cl. (d) because the grant was not of the whole village as certain area was admittedly, excluded from it. It is difficult to hold positively, though it is probable. that the grant to Mudali as well as the Yerayeli grant were by the same paravangi, but even so these will be two separate grants though written on one piece of paper, the contracting parties being two different persons. Neither of these, grants can be held to be a grant of a whole village. On the scanty materials before us it is not possible to say that there were service grants. The expression "other tenure" in the explanation should ordinarily be construed ejusdem generis with a service tenure owing to the reason that these service tenures usually are resumable and in case of resumable tenures the reversionary right in the land remains in the grantee and therefore even if such resumable tenures are excluded from the grant, in substance the grant can be deemed to be of the whole village. The same can be said of lands reserved for communal purposes.9. In-Jankirama Sastri v. Jagani Gopalam. AIR 1952 Mad 224 (A), it .was observed."any inam village" in S. 3 (2) (d) means "a whole village granted in inam and not anything less than a village. however big a part it may be of that village."In my opinion, this is the true construction of 3(2) (d) and the explanation has a similar meaning. It clarifies the point that notwithstanding the exclusion of certain lands in which the grantee has a reversionary interest from the grant, nonetheless it remains a grant of a whole village provided it is so expressed. In the present case from the evidence on the record as dismissed above, all that can be satisfactorily held proved is that two blocks of land were separately granted to two different persons, whether contemporaneously or otherwise, it is difficult to say There is no evidence to find satisfactorily either the nature of the Yerayeli grant or its exact date. It seems, however, clear that the grant was not resumable, it being hereditary and being of the same nature and character as the grant to Mudali.The learned Judges were impressed by the fact that the boundaries of the village were mentioned in the register and for fixing the jodi the income from the entire village was taken into consideration and that subsequently the village was allowed to be redeemed on payment of twenty years quit rent. From the recitals in col. 21 this inference appears to be drawn, but in my view this is not a justifiable inference. It is true that in the absence of actual and authentic evidence as to the nature of the original grant a report contained in the inam register has to be given importance, subject to the qualification that the entries in the register have been accurately made and carefully written and they give a complete picture of the history of the grant and show how it originated and in what terms it was expressed. So far as Ex. A-2 is concerned, it neither gives the name of the grantor nor of the grantee. The entries given in Ex. B-1 are not, complete and accurate and do not state how the original grant was expressed and in what terms.10. For the reasons given above, in my opinion, it has not been satisfactorily established that the grant covered by title deed No. 2156 was a grant of a whole village or was expressed in terms of a named village and the area excluded was of a nature mentioned in the explanation and that being so, the definition of the word "estate" as given in S. 3(2)(d), Madras Estates Land Act, is not attracted to the facts of this case. In these circumstance under the provisions of S. 6(2) of the Act the defendant was not entitled to a permanent right of occupancy in the suit land.
1[ds]The only evidence in support of the respondents contention consists of two solitary entries (Exhibits2) from the inam register prepared in the year 1870. Those entries clearly show that the grant to the predecessor in interest of the Chatram (the appellant) did not incorporate the whole area of the village lands.is an extract from the register of inams in the whole village of Kunanjeri. Col. 2 in this extract bears the following heading : "General class to which the inam belongs" and under it the entry is "Personal. Now Dharmadayam". Col. 3 concerns the survey numbers and names of the field or fields comprised in the grant. The entry in this column is "Ayacut. Deduct poramboke minor inams No survey numbers are mentioned, though admittedly the land was described by survey numbers in the revenue papers. The fourth and fifth columns in the register relate to the extent of the grant and show that the grant was of the total area minus 63 acres odd, though this entry is not quite consistent with the statements contained in in col.21Cols. 6 and 7 relates to the cess paid by the ryot to the inamdar or the average assessment of similar government land. No entry is found under these columns. Some entries appear in Col. 7 giving calculations of the amount that during the inam proceedings was fixed as quit rent in lieu of the earlier kind rent, but these have no relevancy to the heading of the columns. In column 8 which relates to the description of the inam it was stated that it was for the personal benefit of the holder. The tenure was stated to be hereditary and the proposed quit rent was in the sum of Rs. 1.733.The heading of col. 11 is "By whom granted and in what year." The entry under it is "By Pratapa Sinha Raju 1790".Under col. 12 it is stated that the grant was under a Paravangi hearing the seal of Sri Pratapa Sinha Raja of the year 1790. Col. 13 states that the original grantee was Gudalur Venkatachala Mudali. Col. 14 mentions that at the time when the register was prepared under Regulation 31 of 1802, one Mukthambalpuram Annachatram was the registered holder. Cols. 15, 16, 17, 19 and 20 have been left blank as those columns have no relevancy to the history of this grant. In col. 18 the appellants name is entered. This column relates to the relation of the present holder to the original grantee or subsequent registered grantee. Col. 21 is for "the Deputy Collectors opinion and recommendation". It contains the following recital :This is a whole Nel Izara or grain rented village. It is supported by a Paravangi granted by Pratapa Sinha Raja in the year Tissian maya Alaf corresponding to Sadarana (A. D. 1790).From the various entries mentioned above all that can be legitimately inferred is that out of the total area of the village 40V. 12M., the land allotted to Mudali was 39V. 17M. and the land described as Yeraveli was OV. 15M. Two blocks of land, one a major block, another a minor block, were held by two different persons under two separate grants. It also appears that previous to these grants the whole village had been rented by the Raja to Mudali for a rent of 4.000 kalams. The boundaries of the village given include both these areas. There is nothing in this document from which it can be properly inferred that in express terms the village of Kunanjeri was granted to Mudali as an inam.On the other hand, it appears that when the whole village was given on lease, it was so described in clear terms. In the column dealing with the extent of the grant, it is not stated that the grant is of the village as such. On the other hand, the area granted is stated. It also does not appear from this document that the area described as Yeraeli had been granted prior to the grant of major area in 1790 or it was a contemporaneous grant by the same paravangi or was subsequent to it.6. Exhibitis another entry from the same inam register relating to the area described as Yerayeli. In col.2 it is stated that this area was also a personal grant. Col. 3 gives the survey number of the area granted. Cols. 4 and 5 give the area in acres. Col. 6 is blank, while col. 7 states the amount fixed as quit rent. In col. 8 it is stated that the grant was for the personal benefit of the holder. Col. 9 gives the amount of the proposed jodi as Rs.In col.10 it is stated that the grant is hereditary. Col. 11 is headed "By whom granted and in what year". There is no entry under this heading at all.In col. 12 it is stated that the grant was under the Paravangi of 1790. The name of the original grantee in col. 13 is also left blank. In Col 14 it is stated that one Chinna Appumuppan was registered as the holder under Regulation 31 of 1802. In col. 16 the name of the present holder is given as Viiayathammal, Age 20, Cols. 17 and 20 are left blank. Col. 18 is headed as follows: "Relation to original grantee or subsequent registered holders". Underneath this column is entered: "Grandsons widow to the party in the 14th column". In col. 21 it is stated "Reference be made to the register entry in Ex.From this document again it is not possible to hold that the Yerayeli grant was previous to the grant to Mudali or was contemporaneous or subsequent to it. The probability is that as both these grants rerfer to the Paravangi of 1790, they may have been by the same document, but it is not possible to say in what order they were made.8. Onboth these grants were confirmed by the Inam Commissioner. By title deed No. 2156, the principal grant was confirmed to the Chatram on a combined quit rent of Rs. 1,798, while by title deed No. 2157 the Yerayeli grant was confirmed in favour of the heirs of Vijaythammal. The result is that in this village two blocks of land are held under two separate grants by two different persons and they were recognized under two separate title deeds by the British Government. From this meagre material it is not possible to conclude that the first grant, was either of the whole village area or was expressed to be of a named village and that the area excluded had already been granted for service or other tenure.The learned trial Judge and the learned Judges of the High Court thought that the inam grant of Kunanjeri village covered by title deed No. 2156 was of a named village because in col. 21 the boundaries of the whole village were given and the whole village was described as a grain rented village. In my opinion, from this recital in Col. 21 such an inference was not justified. The description in that part was given concerning the lease that had been granted to Mudali prior to the grant and while describing the lease it had to be said that the lease was of the whole area of the village and its boundaries were stated. When the question of grant was dealt with, it was clearly stated in entry 21 that the grant was of 39V. 17M. out of an area of 40V. 12M. The more reasonable inference is that the grant was expressed in terms of areas and not in terms of the name of a village.Even when the grant is of a particular area in a village, the village has to be named; but, in my opinion, that is not complying with the conditions mentioned in Explanation 1to S. 3(2)(d) of the Act. Under the explanation in express terms a grant has to be of a village by name and if the grant is expressed in those terms and it is discovered that it does not incorporate the whole area of the village and certain area has been excluded from it, even then the grant will be deemed to be of an estate provided the area excluded has already been granted on service or other tenure or given for communal purposes. From the entries in Exhibitssuch an inference cannot be drawn.Obviously the case does not fall under the main part of cl. (d) because the grant was not of the whole village as certain area was admittedly, excluded from it. It is difficult to hold positively, though it is probable. that the grant to Mudali as well as the Yerayeli grant were by the same paravangi, but even so these will be two separate grants though written on one piece of paper, the contracting parties being two different persons. Neither of these, grants can be held to be a grant of a whole village. On the scanty materials before us it is not possible to say that there were service grants. The expression "other tenure" in the explanation should ordinarily be construed ejusdem generis with a service tenure owing to the reason that these service tenures usually are resumable and in case of resumable tenures the reversionary right in the land remains in the grantee and therefore even if such resumable tenures are excluded from the grant, in substance the grant can be deemed to be of the whole village. The same can be said of lands reserved for communal purposes.9.Sastri v. Jagani Gopalam. AIR 1952 Mad 224  (A), it .wasinam village" in S. 3 (2) (d) means "a whole village granted in inam and not anything less than a village. however big a part it may be of thatmy opinion, this is the true construction of 3(2) (d) and the explanation has a similar meaning. It clarifies the point that notwithstanding the exclusion of certain lands in which the grantee has a reversionary interest from the grant, nonetheless it remains a grant of a whole village provided it is so expressed. In the present case from the evidence on the record as dismissed above, all that can be satisfactorily held proved is that two blocks of land were separately granted to two different persons, whether contemporaneously or otherwise, it is difficult to say There is no evidence to find satisfactorily either the nature of the Yerayeli grant or its exact date. It seems, however, clear that the grant was not resumable, it being hereditary and being of the same nature and character as the grant to Mudali.The learned Judges were impressed by the fact that the boundaries of the village were mentioned in the register and for fixing the jodi the income from the entire village was taken into consideration and that subsequently the village was allowed to be redeemed on payment of twenty years quit rent. From the recitals in col. 21 this inference appears to be drawn, but in my view this is not a justifiable inference. It is true that in the absence of actual and authentic evidence as to the nature of the original grant a report contained in the inam register has to be given importance, subject to the qualification that the entries in the register have been accurately made and carefully written and they give a complete picture of the history of the grant and show how it originated and in what terms it was expressed. So far as Ex.is concerned, it neither gives the name of the grantor nor of the grantee. The entries given in Ex.are not, complete and accurate and do not state how the original grant was expressed and in what terms.10. For the reasons given above, in my opinion, it has not been satisfactorily established that the grant covered by title deed No. 2156 was a grant of a whole village or was expressed in terms of a named village and the area excluded was of a nature mentioned in the explanation and that being so, the definition of the word "estate" as given in S. 3(2)(d), Madras Estates Land Act, is not attracted to the facts of this case. In these circumstance under the provisions of S. 6(2) of the Act the defendant was not entitled to a permanent right of occupancy in the suit land.
### Instruction:
Estimate the outcome of the case (positive (1) or negative (0) for the appellant) and then give a reasoned explanation by examining important sentences within the case documentation.

### Input:
to conclude that the first grant, was either of the whole village area or was expressed to be of a named village and that the area excluded had already been granted for service or other tenure.The learned trial Judge and the learned Judges of the High Court thought that the inam grant of Kunanjeri village covered by title deed No. 2156 was of a named village because in col. 21 the boundaries of the whole village were given and the whole village was described as a grain rented village. In my opinion, from this recital in Col. 21 such an inference was not justified. The description in that part was given concerning the lease that had been granted to Mudali prior to the grant and while describing the lease it had to be said that the lease was of the whole area of the village and its boundaries were stated. When the question of grant was dealt with, it was clearly stated in entry 21 that the grant was of 39V. 17M. out of an area of 40V. 12M. The more reasonable inference is that the grant was expressed in terms of areas and not in terms of the name of a village.Even when the grant is of a particular area in a village, the village has to be named; but, in my opinion, that is not complying with the conditions mentioned in Explanation 1to S. 3(2)(d) of the Act. Under the explanation in express terms a grant has to be of a village by name and if the grant is expressed in those terms and it is discovered that it does not incorporate the whole area of the village and certain area has been excluded from it, even then the grant will be deemed to be of an estate provided the area excluded has already been granted on service or other tenure or given for communal purposes. From the entries in Exhibits B-I and A-2 such an inference cannot be drawn.Obviously the case does not fall under the main part of cl. (d) because the grant was not of the whole village as certain area was admittedly, excluded from it. It is difficult to hold positively, though it is probable. that the grant to Mudali as well as the Yerayeli grant were by the same paravangi, but even so these will be two separate grants though written on one piece of paper, the contracting parties being two different persons. Neither of these, grants can be held to be a grant of a whole village. On the scanty materials before us it is not possible to say that there were service grants. The expression "other tenure" in the explanation should ordinarily be construed ejusdem generis with a service tenure owing to the reason that these service tenures usually are resumable and in case of resumable tenures the reversionary right in the land remains in the grantee and therefore even if such resumable tenures are excluded from the grant, in substance the grant can be deemed to be of the whole village. The same can be said of lands reserved for communal purposes.9. In-Jankirama Sastri v. Jagani Gopalam. AIR 1952 Mad 224 (A), it .was observed."any inam village" in S. 3 (2) (d) means "a whole village granted in inam and not anything less than a village. however big a part it may be of that village."In my opinion, this is the true construction of 3(2) (d) and the explanation has a similar meaning. It clarifies the point that notwithstanding the exclusion of certain lands in which the grantee has a reversionary interest from the grant, nonetheless it remains a grant of a whole village provided it is so expressed. In the present case from the evidence on the record as dismissed above, all that can be satisfactorily held proved is that two blocks of land were separately granted to two different persons, whether contemporaneously or otherwise, it is difficult to say There is no evidence to find satisfactorily either the nature of the Yerayeli grant or its exact date. It seems, however, clear that the grant was not resumable, it being hereditary and being of the same nature and character as the grant to Mudali.The learned Judges were impressed by the fact that the boundaries of the village were mentioned in the register and for fixing the jodi the income from the entire village was taken into consideration and that subsequently the village was allowed to be redeemed on payment of twenty years quit rent. From the recitals in col. 21 this inference appears to be drawn, but in my view this is not a justifiable inference. It is true that in the absence of actual and authentic evidence as to the nature of the original grant a report contained in the inam register has to be given importance, subject to the qualification that the entries in the register have been accurately made and carefully written and they give a complete picture of the history of the grant and show how it originated and in what terms it was expressed. So far as Ex. A-2 is concerned, it neither gives the name of the grantor nor of the grantee. The entries given in Ex. B-1 are not, complete and accurate and do not state how the original grant was expressed and in what terms.10. For the reasons given above, in my opinion, it has not been satisfactorily established that the grant covered by title deed No. 2156 was a grant of a whole village or was expressed in terms of a named village and the area excluded was of a nature mentioned in the explanation and that being so, the definition of the word "estate" as given in S. 3(2)(d), Madras Estates Land Act, is not attracted to the facts of this case. In these circumstance under the provisions of S. 6(2) of the Act the defendant was not entitled to a permanent right of occupancy in the suit land.

### Response:
1

### Explanation:
deeds by the British Government. From this meagre material it is not possible to conclude that the first grant, was either of the whole village area or was expressed to be of a named village and that the area excluded had already been granted for service or other tenure.The learned trial Judge and the learned Judges of the High Court thought that the inam grant of Kunanjeri village covered by title deed No. 2156 was of a named village because in col. 21 the boundaries of the whole village were given and the whole village was described as a grain rented village. In my opinion, from this recital in Col. 21 such an inference was not justified. The description in that part was given concerning the lease that had been granted to Mudali prior to the grant and while describing the lease it had to be said that the lease was of the whole area of the village and its boundaries were stated. When the question of grant was dealt with, it was clearly stated in entry 21 that the grant was of 39V. 17M. out of an area of 40V. 12M. The more reasonable inference is that the grant was expressed in terms of areas and not in terms of the name of a village.Even when the grant is of a particular area in a village, the village has to be named; but, in my opinion, that is not complying with the conditions mentioned in Explanation 1to S. 3(2)(d) of the Act. Under the explanation in express terms a grant has to be of a village by name and if the grant is expressed in those terms and it is discovered that it does not incorporate the whole area of the village and certain area has been excluded from it, even then the grant will be deemed to be of an estate provided the area excluded has already been granted on service or other tenure or given for communal purposes. From the entries in Exhibitssuch an inference cannot be drawn.Obviously the case does not fall under the main part of cl. (d) because the grant was not of the whole village as certain area was admittedly, excluded from it. It is difficult to hold positively, though it is probable. that the grant to Mudali as well as the Yerayeli grant were by the same paravangi, but even so these will be two separate grants though written on one piece of paper, the contracting parties being two different persons. Neither of these, grants can be held to be a grant of a whole village. On the scanty materials before us it is not possible to say that there were service grants. The expression "other tenure" in the explanation should ordinarily be construed ejusdem generis with a service tenure owing to the reason that these service tenures usually are resumable and in case of resumable tenures the reversionary right in the land remains in the grantee and therefore even if such resumable tenures are excluded from the grant, in substance the grant can be deemed to be of the whole village. The same can be said of lands reserved for communal purposes.9.Sastri v. Jagani Gopalam. AIR 1952 Mad 224  (A), it .wasinam village" in S. 3 (2) (d) means "a whole village granted in inam and not anything less than a village. however big a part it may be of thatmy opinion, this is the true construction of 3(2) (d) and the explanation has a similar meaning. It clarifies the point that notwithstanding the exclusion of certain lands in which the grantee has a reversionary interest from the grant, nonetheless it remains a grant of a whole village provided it is so expressed. In the present case from the evidence on the record as dismissed above, all that can be satisfactorily held proved is that two blocks of land were separately granted to two different persons, whether contemporaneously or otherwise, it is difficult to say There is no evidence to find satisfactorily either the nature of the Yerayeli grant or its exact date. It seems, however, clear that the grant was not resumable, it being hereditary and being of the same nature and character as the grant to Mudali.The learned Judges were impressed by the fact that the boundaries of the village were mentioned in the register and for fixing the jodi the income from the entire village was taken into consideration and that subsequently the village was allowed to be redeemed on payment of twenty years quit rent. From the recitals in col. 21 this inference appears to be drawn, but in my view this is not a justifiable inference. It is true that in the absence of actual and authentic evidence as to the nature of the original grant a report contained in the inam register has to be given importance, subject to the qualification that the entries in the register have been accurately made and carefully written and they give a complete picture of the history of the grant and show how it originated and in what terms it was expressed. So far as Ex.is concerned, it neither gives the name of the grantor nor of the grantee. The entries given in Ex.are not, complete and accurate and do not state how the original grant was expressed and in what terms.10. For the reasons given above, in my opinion, it has not been satisfactorily established that the grant covered by title deed No. 2156 was a grant of a whole village or was expressed in terms of a named village and the area excluded was of a nature mentioned in the explanation and that being so, the definition of the word "estate" as given in S. 3(2)(d), Madras Estates Land Act, is not attracted to the facts of this case. In these circumstance under the provisions of S. 6(2) of the Act the defendant was not entitled to a permanent right of occupancy in the suit land.
