Judgement Appeal from a decree of the High Court (July 12, 1897) affirming a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Ellore (Sept. 16, 1895) in favour of the plaintiff. The suit was brought by the representative of the senior branch of the Nidadavole family to recover the muttah of Tangellamudi, which was alleged by him to have been given to a younger branch of the same family, on a tenure which was only to last so long as there were members of the younger branch, whose maintenance was a legal charge upon the senior branch. The zemindary of Nuzvid, as it existed in 1783, was a very large, ancient and impartible zemindary, which was then held by one Narayya. It was confiscated in that year on account of his rebellion, and was restored in 1784 to his eldest son Venkata Narasimha. In 1793 it was again resumed by Government for arrears of revenue, and in 1802 two new zemindaries were carved out of it, of which the larger, Nidadavole, was granted to V. Narasimha, and the smaller, Nuzvid, was 09 Law. Rep. 30 Ind. App. 14 ( 1902- 1903) Raja Raja Jee Bahadur Garu V. Raja Parthasaradhi Appa Row 110 granted to the second son Ramachundra. Tangellamudi, the muttah now in dispute, and Chavendra were included in Nidadavole. The plaintiff (now represented by the respondents) sued J under the circumstances stated in their Lordships judgment for possession of Tangellamudi. She alleged that Tangellamudi was granted to Simhadri and Venkatadri to be held in lieu of maintenance, and that it reverted to the estate when there were no longer representatives of Simhadri, whose maintenance was a charge on the estate. The first defendant filed a written statement, in which she pleaded that the adopted son of Papamma was the proper person to sue, and alleged that Simhadri held Tangellamudi on an absolute heritable title. Venkatadri, the second defendant, in his statement asserted that Palagudem, one of the villages of Tangellamudi, was granted absolutely in lieu of past maintenance, that the rest of the muttah was granted for the future maintenance of himself and Simhadri, " with the condition that the said estate should continue so long as the male members and females of the same gotra of the family survive." He claimed to be the person entitled to succeed on the death of Sitayya. In 1885 the original Court dismissed the suit, finding (1) that the plaintiff was not the proper person to sue, and (2.) that the tenure of the muttah was permanent. After a remand by the High Court, the original Court in 1895 passed a new decree giving possession to the plaintiff. Its judgment proceeded on the finding— "That the plaint village of Palagudem was granted absolutely; while the remaining seven villages were granted for mere enjoyment, and not absolutely." The High Court dismissed the first defendants appeal, on the ground that prima facie a grant for future maintenance does not avail beyond the time during which the obligation to maintenance exists. That it was necessary to look in the first place to Narayyas arzi to see what was his intention, and that there are no words in that arzi to indicate any intention on his part to create an estate of inheritance in his cousins. In the face of these considerations, " we cannot attach any weight to the expression used by the collector or by the two brothers in their arzis." Cohen, K.C., and Mayne, for the appellant, contended that this decision was wrong. The intentions of Narayya were to be judged from both arzis, that is, his own and the one addressed to the Collector by Simhadri and Venkatadri, which constituted the written evidence of the agreement. The zemindars arzi goes into less detail than the other documents, but it refers to the agreement in presence of the Collector and to the arzi addressed to him by Simhadri and Venkatadri as containing the conditions to which he assented and by which he agreed to abide. It is evident, therefore, that both arzis must be read together. They then accord with the view put forward by the Collector in his official statement of the arrangement he had personally brought about, and to which the High Court had not given sufficient weight. Other documents in the case establish the character of the transaction as terminating the rights of the zemindar over the muttah in question. Jardine, K.C., and De Gruyther, for the respondents, contended that the High Court was right in holding that the seven villages were granted by Narayya in the arzi signed by him as maintenance villages and were resumable on the death of Sitayya, who was the last person entitled to maintenance thereout. Jardine, K.C., and De Gruyther, for the respondents, contended that the High Court was right in holding that the seven villages were granted by Narayya in the arzi signed by him as maintenance villages and were resumable on the death of Sitayya, who was the last person entitled to maintenance thereout. By the admitted arrangement come to between the two brothers, all interest which Venkatadri might at one time have had in the villages ceased and was extinguished. Upon this point of 09 Law. Rep. 30 Ind. App. 14 ( 1902- 1903) Raja Raja Jee Bahadur Garu V. Raja Parthasaradhi Appa Row 111 construction they contended that a maintenance grant is never a grant of inheritance unless special words apt and clearly intended for that purpose are inserted. The words "for ever” by themselves are not sufficient. One test is, who pays the revenue and other Government charges on the property. If the grantor pays, it is a resumable grant. If the grantee pays, it is a permanent one. Reference was made to Rajah Rameshar Baksh Singh v. Arjun Singh (( 1900) L. R. 28 Ind. Ap. 1..) ; Aziz-un-nissa v. Tassadduk Husain Khan (( 1901) L. R. 28 Ind. Ap. 65.); Karim Nensey v. Heinrichs (( 1901) L. R. 28 Ind. Ap. 198.); Toolshi Pershad Singh v. Rajah Ram Narain Singh. (( 1901) L. R. 12 Ind. Ap. 205.) Mayne replied. Dec. 13. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by SIR ANDREW SCOBLE. For some years after succeeding to his estate, Narayya, zemindar of Nidadavole, was in serious pecuniary difficulties. He owed a large sum of money to his kinsman, the zemindar of Nuzvid, besides considerable sums to other creditors and to Government for arrears of revenue. 205.) Mayne replied. Dec. 13. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by SIR ANDREW SCOBLE. For some years after succeeding to his estate, Narayya, zemindar of Nidadavole, was in serious pecuniary difficulties. He owed a large sum of money to his kinsman, the zemindar of Nuzvid, besides considerable sums to other creditors and to Government for arrears of revenue. In 1839 a compromise was effected whereby a portion of the Nidadavole estate was to be handed over to the Nuzvid zemindar in satisfaction of his claim; and to complete the matter it was proposed that the Government demand should be relinquished, and the remaining portion of the estate " made over to Narayya "in the event of his satisfying other private creditors." In order to carry out these arrangements, the Court of Directors of the East India Company, in a despatch dated August 24, 1842, directed that the whole estate of Nidadavole should be sold; and this was accordingly done, and the estate was purchased by the Government for eight lakhs of rupees. By this purchase the Government became absolute owner of the estate, and the proprietary rights of Narayya were for the time extinguished. The claim of the zemindar of Nuzvid was satisfied by the transfer to him of certain villages; but the Board of Revenue, in a letter dated January 4, 1844, recommended that it was not advisable that Narayya should be placed in possession of his part of the estate "until all questions connected with the subject be definitely settled." Among these questions was the satisfaction of the claims of other private creditors. It was proposed by the Collector of Masulipatam, who represented the Government in the negotiations, that " the most possible method of adjusting these claims, if the consent of the parties could be obtained, would be by the transfer permanently or temporarily, as the circumstances of each case might appear to require, of a certain portion of the estate, from the proceeds of which each claim might be realized"; and an adjustment on this basis was eventually made " after frequent conferences " between Narayya and the various parties in the presence of the Collector. Of the claims thus adjusted, the only one with which their Lordships have to deal is that of Simhadri and Venkatadri, the representatives of a younger branch of Narayyas family, who were entitled to maintenance out of the estate, and to whom a considerable sum was owing for arrears. The terms of the settlement with these claimants are contained in two documents, which are thus described in paragraph 9 of the Collectors Report to the Board of Revenue, dated November 18, 1843 "Enclosures 5 and 6 contain stipulations entered into by Narayya on the one hand, and Simhadri and Venkatadri on the other, by which it is agreed that eight villages appertaining to the Ambarpettah muttah .... and two Mocassah villages .... shall be permanently alienated to Simhadri and Venkatadri, they paying the peishcush which may be assessed on them.....This cession, it will be observed, is proposed not only in full satisfaction of the whole amount of arrears due for marriage expenses and the monthly allowance of 400 rupees due up to this period, but also in lieu of all further payment on account of the monthly allowance." In forwarding the Collectors proposals for the sanction of Government, on January 4, 1844, the Board of Revenue say "The alienation in favour of the Simhadri branch of the family, it is proposed, shall be in perpetuity." The final orders of Government appear to have been given on this 09 Law. Rep. 30 Ind. App. 14 ( 1902- 1903) Raja Raja Jee Bahadur Garu V. Raja Parthasaradhi Appa Row 112 basis; and Simhadri and Venkatadri were placed in possession of the villages, which may conveniently be described as the Tangellamudi muttah. On March 15, 1846, the zemindar of Nuzvid assigned the muttah of Chavendra to Simhadri and Venkatadri in satisfaction of their claims upon him for maintenance past and future, and on August 7, 1846, the two brothers made a partition of their joint property, under which Simhadri took the muttah of Tangellamudi, and Venkatadri took Chavendra and two other villages. This partition was made "through and in the presence of Narayya," and proceeded on the assumption that Tangellamudi and Chavendra were held on the same absolute and permanent tenure. Simhadri died in 1861, and his widow Sitayya succeeded to his estate. This partition was made "through and in the presence of Narayya," and proceeded on the assumption that Tangellamudi and Chavendra were held on the same absolute and permanent tenure. Simhadri died in 1861, and his widow Sitayya succeeded to his estate. Sitayya died in 1885, and the contest in the suit under appeal is now between her daughters son (who would be her heir according to Hindu law) and persons who claim either under Venkatadri or Narayya. The sole question is whether, under the settlement of 1844, and the subsequent partition of 1846, Simhadri acquired an absolute title to the Tangellamudi muttah. Upon the history of the case, as above stated, their Lordships have no doubt that the origin of the title was in a grant from the Government, and not from Narayya, who at the time of the transaction had no estate out of which he could make a grant. Nor do the documents relied on by the respondents, and which have already been mentioned as inclosures 5 and 6 to the Collectors report of November 18, 1843, conflict with this view. These documents are two arzis, dated August 13, 1843, addressed to the Collector of Masulipatam, one by Narayya, and the other by Simhadri and Venkatadri. It was contended on behalf of the respondents that the arzi signed by Narayya was, as regards seven of the villages mentioned therein, a grant by him for maintenance only, and therefore resumable on the death of Sitayya, the last person entitled to maintenance thereout. This was the view taken by the Subordinate Judge who tried the case in the first instance, and by the High Court of Madras on appeal. But their Lordships are unable to accede to this view. The arzi signed by Narayya was in no sense a conveyance. It was, as its name denotes, a petition to the Collector, which, after stating the terms of settlement agreed on between the parties, went on to say— further that no claims of whatever nature may hereafter be for ever advanced, either by them for the payment of the said allowances, or by us regarding the aforesaid villages. It was, as its name denotes, a petition to the Collector, which, after stating the terms of settlement agreed on between the parties, went on to say— further that no claims of whatever nature may hereafter be for ever advanced, either by them for the payment of the said allowances, or by us regarding the aforesaid villages. I also gave my assent, and agree to abide according to the aforesaid conditions, and humbly solicit you will therefore be pleased to forward our petitions with your recommendation to the honourable Government and to the Board of Revenue, and at the time when the Nidadavole and Bahurzally pergunnahs as well as Ambarpett muttah may be made over to me by the Circar, allow the aforesaid eight villages in the Ambarpett muttah to be taken possession of by the said Simhadri and Venkatadri, and continue the aforesaid conditions in force." These words leave no doubt that what Narayya contemplated was a grant by the Government to Simhadri and Venkatadri of these villages in full settlement of their past and future claims on the estate, and by the partition in 1846 Simhadris title to them was completed. Their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal should be allowed, and the decrees of the Court of the Subordinate Judge and the High Court reversed, and the plaintiffs suit dismissed with costs throughout. The respond ents who were substituted for Papamma Row, the original respondent, must pay the costs of the appeal, including the costs of the revivor proceedings.