Judgement Appeal from a decree of the High Court (October 9, 1900) reversing a decree of the Agent to the Governor of Madras at Ganjam (July 5, 1898). The question decided was whether under all the circumstances stated in the judgment of their Lordships the title to certain hill tracts or districts known as " maliahs " now vests in the Government of India or in the appellant as zemindar or Rajah of Parlakimidi, within the ambit of whose zemindari they are situated. Constant complaints having been made of the destruction of forests, the Board of Revenue, on August 10, 1891, reported the matter to Government, expressing the opinion that the bisoyees were not the owners of the forests, and that the title vested in Government except where transferred to a zemindar. On November 3, 1891, a Government resolution was passed to the effect that the forests in the Kimidi Zemindari were also the property of the State. On February 8, 1893, representations were made on behalf of the zemindar claiming the forests or compensation. The Government by order dated July 21, 1893, refused to recognise his title or to award him any compensation, and followed up this order by ejecting him from the forests of which he held possession. In consequence the appellant filed his plaint, which recited the grant of the sanad in 1803, after previous confiscation, to his ancestor, and the uninterrupted possession of the plaintiff. Title to the lands in dispute was claimed, firstly by express grant, secondly by implied grant, and thirdly by prescription. In the alternative a right in the nature of an easement or profit a prendre was claimed. The reliefs sought were a declaration of the plaintiffs title, delivery of possession of the lands in suit, and an injunction to restrain any interference by the defendant. On behalf of the Secretary of State for India in Council a written statement in defence was filed. The main pleas raised were (I.) That the sanad granted in 1803 did not include the maliahs or hill tracts in suit; (n.) That there had been no implied grant of the same; and (in.) That the plaintiff has not acquired title thereto by prescription or otherwise. The questions involved were 1. Whether the zemindar was the owner of the lands in suit prior to confiscation ? 2. Whether subsequent to confiscation they were restored to the zemindar? The questions involved were 1. Whether the zemindar was the owner of the lands in suit prior to confiscation ? 2. Whether subsequent to confiscation they were restored to the zemindar? 3. Whether the zemindar has acquired a title by prescription ? 4. Whether the defendant is estopped from disputing the plaintiffs title? The Governors Agent at Ganjam decided that the Crown had a title to all forest and waste lands not forming part of recognised estates, that if there had been no forfeiture the maliahs and forests in dispute would have been included in the sanad granted to the zemindar, and that it was only under the permanent settlement that zemindars were constituted owners of their estates including forest and waste lands in full proprietary right. He was of opinion that the terms in the proclamation " lands held by the bisoyees "and " possessions of the bisoyees " must be taken to include also the forests and waste lands of the maliahs, and consequently that the lands in suit were exempted from the restoration to the zemindar. It was, however, admitted that the proprietary right to the " maliahs " in suit did not vest in the bisoyees. He decided that the appellant had been in adverse possession since the year 1861; but as the East India Company had held possession prior to the grant of the sanad and again during military operations in 1835 no title by prescription had accrued. Lastly, he was of opinion that the acts of Government since 1861 were a clear admission of the plaintiffs title, in consequence of which he was induced to believe he had a valid title to the lands in dispute and to spend large sums of money in developing them. He therefore held that the defendant was estopped from denying the plaintiffs right to the maliahs. In the result he made a decree in favour of the plaintiff with costs. In reference to estoppel, the Agent was of opinion that mere acquiescence or even a display of interest by the defendant in the working of the maliah forests by the plaintiff was sufficient to bar the title of the defendant, who was apparently acting in ignorance of his rights. But he added "The question of expenditure on the maliah roads appears in quite a different light. But he added "The question of expenditure on the maliah roads appears in quite a different light. It is true that, to some extent, the roads may have been of use to the plaintiff for the transport of timber as well as to the general public; but it is equally clear that the roads so constructed were not merely forest roads. The principle kept in view from 1860 onwards has been the opening up of a track to the forts of the various bisoyees for the purpose of the better control over those chiefs as well as for the opening up and development of the country. It would be absurd to contend that the plaintiff would expend on these roads an annual grant of Rs.2000, besides large special grants (e.g., gumma ghat) merely for the purpose of collecting the bisoyees kattubadi, amounting to some Rs.3000, for which he is held responsible. The object and purpose for which these roads were constructed were essentially the interest of Government and the interest of the public. If, as the defendant asserts, the plaintiff has no interest in the maliahs beyond the assignment and the collection as agent on behalf of defendant of the tribute payable by the bisoyees, then it was the duty of the defendant to construct those roads and to incur that expenditure, whereas it is made abundantly clear from the evidence that the defendant regarded the construction of those roads or tracks as part of the plaintiffs duty, and not only urged forward their construction at the plaintiffs expense through the medium of the officers of its own Public Works Department, but also cavilled at the short work said to have been turned out by the plaintiff departmentally on the Gumma Ghat Road. This seems to me to amount to a clear admission, on the part of the defendant, of the plaintiffs title; the plaintiff was clearly thereby induced to believe in his title to the forests and waste lands of the maliahs, and on the strength of that belief, and in compliance with the injunctions of the defendant, to expend in the development of that country, both for the public good and for what—assuming that he was entitled thereto— would have been his own interests, large sums of money, which, under the views and claims now put forward by the defendant, it was the clear duty of the latter to provide, Under these circumstances I must hold that the defendant is now estopped from denying the plaintiffs title to the waste lands and forests of the maliahs in proprietary right. The High Court in appeal reversed this decree and dismissed the suit, holding that the judgment of the lower Court could not be supported on the ground of estoppel. The decision on the merits was as follows— "As we agree in the other conclusions arrived at by the agent, it is unnecessary to deal with the other questins in any detail. There can be no doubt, in our opinion, that there was an effective forfeiture of the whole estate formerly known as the Parlakimidi Zemindari. This is admitted in the plaint and proved by the documents produced on behalf of the defendant. It is also clear beyond doubt that when a fresh grant was made to Narain Deo the maliahs were not included in it. It is suggested on behalf of the respondent that not withstanding the forfeiture the zemindar still remained in possession of the maliahs, and it may be true that up to 1821 the Government had not collected the kattubadi payable by the bisoyees, and in that sense had not taken possession. But it is not proved that in the meanwhile the kattubadi was paid to anybody else, and in 1821 it was resolved, notwithstanding the determination to keep the maliahs apart from the zemindari, to collect the dues through the zemindar. In 1885 that arrangement was confirmed, and the zemindar, in consideration of the surrender to him of the Doratanam Mokhasas, was charged with the duty of collecting the kattubadi. In 1885 that arrangement was confirmed, and the zemindar, in consideration of the surrender to him of the Doratanam Mokhasas, was charged with the duty of collecting the kattubadi. Thus, at any rate since 1821, the possession of the maliahs, in so far as it consisted in the collection of those dues, was with Government, and until about 1860, when the value of the forests came to be recognised, that was practically the only way in which an owner of the maliahs could exercise his rights over them. It is impossible .to reconcile the position assigned to the zemindar under the arrangement of 1835 with the theory that his ownership of the maliahs was then existent or recog nised. From 1830 down to 1890 the zemindari was in the hands of Government, and during the latter half of that period the Government officials failed to distinguish between the zemindari proper and the maliahs which were the property of Government. On the first occasion, when the matter is clearly put before the Government and a demand for a sanad is formulated, the claim is repudiated by Government, and there is no ground for suggesting that there ever was any intention to surrender the property to the zemindar. For that reason, the argument in favour of acquiescence on the part of Government has no foundation in fact, while in point of law, it may be added, that such acquiescence, if proved, could not give the plaintiff a good title. The plaintiff has altogether failed to prove his case. It is true, as alleged in the plaint, that there was a forfeiture of the whole estate, including the maliahs. It is not true, as is hinted rather than alleged in the plaint, that the maliahs were comprised in the grant made in 1803, nor is it true that since that date the zemindars have been in possession or exercised acts of ownership over that tract of land. Nor, again, is it true that the plaintiff acquired a title by adverse possession or otherwise. "Except on the ground of ownership, no claim was made before us by the plaintiffs counsel. Nor, again, is it true that the plaintiff acquired a title by adverse possession or otherwise. "Except on the ground of ownership, no claim was made before us by the plaintiffs counsel. The plaintiff having failed to prove his case, the decree must be reversed and the suit dismissed, with costs in this Court and in the Court below." The material passage in respect of estoppel was as follows " Between 1861 and 1893, during which period the plaintiffs zemindari was in the charge of the Court of Wards, the officers of Government, including those immediately concerned with the zemindari, came to believe erroneously, as we must take it, that the maliahs formed part of the zemindari. They treated the maliahs and the zemindari proper as one estate, worked the forests on the maliahs, and constructed roads through them at the expense of the zemindari. According to the plaintiff the result of this confusion has been that the zemindar has suffered, inasmuch as the expenditure on lands which are really the property of Government has exceeded the profits which have come from those lands to the exchequer of the zemindari. The agent to the Governor does not distinctly find that there has been such loss, and the Government does not admit it. Assuming, however, that the confusion has caused a loss to the zemindari, we are unable to see how Government can on that account be estopped from claiming the maliahs as their own property. In order to create an estoppel there must first be something in the nature of a representation made by the person to be estopped to the person who benefits by the estoppel. Here, during the period above mentioned, the zemindari was not in the charge of an owner or even of a guardian indepen dent of Government—it was in the immediate charge of an officer of Government, who at the same time was the local representative of the Government in the district. There were no two persons by one of whom a representation could be made to the other. The mistake must have been made by the Collector, or at any rate he must have been the person responsible for giving it currency. There were no two persons by one of whom a representation could be made to the other. The mistake must have been made by the Collector, or at any rate he must have been the person responsible for giving it currency. We do not mean to say that cases may not arise in which the conduct of Government towards a ward under the Court of "Wards may create an estoppel in favour of the ward. Such cases are possible, as it is possible that litigation may occur between the Government and the ward, or that the possession of the ward may be adverse to Government. In such cases there are distinct acts done by persons purporting to act exclusively in the interest and on behalf of the minor. In the present case no such distinction between the interests of the ward and those of the Government was maintained. The Government, having taken upon itself the duty of protecting the interests of incapacitated persons, was discharging that duty by means of the agency which it employed for other purposes. The Collector, as the local representative of the Government, was charged with the general superintendence of the district as well as with the duty of administering the Parlakimidi estate. From the evidence before us it is impossible to say that the mistake in dealing with the maliahs as part of the estate was committed by him in the capacity of Collector of the district rather than in the capacity of custodian of the estate. The letters to which we are referred are written by him to the Court of Wards, and therefore may be taken to have been written in the interest of the estate. Haldane, K.C., and De Gruyther, for the appellant, contended that his ancestor had admittedly a good title to the maliahs in suit before the confiscation, and that by the true construction of the re-grant in 1803 they were included therein and passed thereby. The sanad was granted in that year on the recommendation of the Board of Revenue to the effect that the zemindari should be entirely restored, but that, as the proclamation had exempted the possessions of the bisoyees from dependence on the zemindari, those possessions should be assessed separately from the zemindari. The effect was that notwithstanding the re-grant the bisoyees were to engage for the revenue directly with the Collector. The effect was that notwithstanding the re-grant the bisoyees were to engage for the revenue directly with the Collector. It was contended that the maliahs in dispute were not included in these possessions of the bisoyees within the meaning of the exception, which was on its true construction limited to such lands as were actually occupied and cultivated by the bisoyees, and did not include those which they held on a service tenure. They contended that the bisoyees were military officials appointed by the zemindar, and held these lands in suit on a service tenure subject to quit-rent, and had no other proprietary interest. Their position was not changed at the time of the re-grant except that they paid revenue direct to the Government. In 1823, however, in consequence of difficulty in collection, the bisoyees were transferred again to the zemindar, and required to pay their quit-rents through him. From that time at least there was adverse possession by the zemindar against the Government. It was contended that the exception from the re-grant did not include the disputed maliahs, but that if it did the status quo ante was restored in 1823 or at a later date. The proprietary right was never vested in the bisoyees, but remained in the zemindar. It was also contended that the first Court was right in holding that the respondent was estopped from denying the plaintiffs title. The zemindari was several times after the re-grant in the hands of the Court of Wards, that is, of the Collector, on behalf of a disqualified zemindar. The Court of Wards, as manager for the zemindar, appointed new bisoyees, dealt with the heir of a deceased bisoyee, and prevented the bisoyees from cutting the forest without permission. About 1858-9 a regular forest administration was formed to manage the disputed maliahs. The Court of Wards or zemindar remained in possession of them, spent large sums in opening up the forests on the strength of their title being undisputed and unquestioned, and sold some of the timber to the Government, who dealt with the zemindar as the absolute owner. It was contended that these and other acts of the Government constituted an admission of the appellants title and an encouragement to him to invest his capital therein. Reference was made to Madras Regulation 25 of 1802, and s. 115 of the Indian Evidence Act. See also Sivasubramanyav. It was contended that these and other acts of the Government constituted an admission of the appellants title and an encouragement to him to invest his capital therein. Reference was made to Madras Regulation 25 of 1802, and s. 115 of the Indian Evidence Act. See also Sivasubramanyav. Secretary of State for India in Council. (( 1885) Ind. L. R. 9 Madr. 285 and on appeal ( 1891) L. R. 18 Ind. Ap. 149.) For the meaning of the word " bisoyee," see Wilsons Glossary, p. 270. Cohen, K.C., and Boss, for the respondent, contended that the two Courts below had rightly held, under all the circumstances of the case, that there had been in the first place an effective forfeiture by proclamation of Government of the whole estate formerly known as the Parlakimidi Zemindari; and in the second place that, when a re-grant thereof was made in 1803 to the grantee named in the sanad, the maliahs in suit were not included in it. They were expressly excepted there from for ascertained political reasons, the object being to make the bisoyees servants of the Government and not of the zemindar, no longer looking to the latter for payment, and no longer under the temptation to combine with the zemindar in hostility to the Government. There had been no subsequent grant by the Government to the plaintiff or any of his predecessors, express or implied, of the maliahs. There were concurrent findings of fact against any title thereto by adverse possession. The plaintiff had never had any proprietary or other right therein since the confiscation. Since the re-grant the bisoyees had never been tributary to the zemindar. Their quit-rents were due to the Government, and were collected by the plaintiff as its Agent. With regard to estoppel, if any acts of ownership were exercised by the plaintiff or his predecessors or by the Court of Wards when in possession, they were done without the authority or implied consent or knowledge of the defendant. They could not operate to create any title to the maliahs in the plaintiff. Under s. 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, the acts or omissions relied upon must prove an intentional causing the plaintiff to believe in his title and to act upon that belief. They could not operate to create any title to the maliahs in the plaintiff. Under s. 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, the acts or omissions relied upon must prove an intentional causing the plaintiff to believe in his title and to act upon that belief. The defendants acts or omissions must be of such a character as to render it fraudulent or in the highest degree inequitable and unjust that he should now .assert his title. Reference was made to Low v. Bouverie ([ 1891] 3 Ch. 82.); Seton v. Lafone (( 1887) 19 Q. B. D. 68.); Willmott v. Barber (( 1880) 15 Ch. D. 96, 105.) ; Ramsden v. Dyson (( 1866) L. R. 1 H. L. 129.) ; Proctor v. Bennis (( 1887) 36 Ch. D. 740,in); Saratchunder Dey v. Gopalchunder Laha (( 1892) L. R. 19 Ind. Ap. 203.); Plimmer v. Mayor of Wellington (( 1884) 9 App. Cas. 699, 710.) ; Ahmad Yar Khan v. Secretary of State for India in Council. (( 1901) L. R. 28 Ind. Ap. 211.) Haldane, K.C., replied. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by SIR ARTHUR WILSON. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, reversing the decision of the Agent to the Governor of Madras at Ganjam. The question in dispute is whether the proprietary right in certain tracts, mainly hill tracts, known as the u maliahs " of Parlakimidi, belongs to the appellant, the plaintiff in the suit, as zemindar of Parlakimidi in the district of Ganjam, in whose favour the Agent decided, or to the Crown, as held by the High Court. Parlakimidi is an ancient zemindari, and the appellants ancestors claimed descent, and appear to have originally derived title, from kings of Orissa, whose dominions once included the parts in question. The larger part, at least, of the zemindari is for all administrative purposes within the district of Ganjam, and subject to the jurisdiction of the ordinary Courts. But on the north of the zemindari lie the maliahs, which are, and for many years have been, separated for the purposes of jurisdiction from the Ganjam district, and form the Parlakimidi Agency. It is to these that the present suit relates. But on the north of the zemindari lie the maliahs, which are, and for many years have been, separated for the purposes of jurisdiction from the Ganjam district, and form the Parlakimidi Agency. It is to these that the present suit relates. The maliahs appear to have been always organised on a special system, not unlike that which has been found to prevail in other hill countries of India. The inhabitants of the country are those known as Savaras, an indigenous hill race, once no doubt a turbulent people and dangerous neighbours to those dwelling in the plains. The maliahs are divided into eleven muttas, each of which is controlled by a local chief or bisoyee. Each bisoyee has his fort (a term sometimes, at least, used as synonymous with the mutta) and his staff of officers and paiks. The bisoyees were formerly responsible for controlling the Savaras within their jurisdiction, maintaining peace and good order, and defending the passes to the plains. In return for these duties they received certain advantages. It is not suggested by either side that a bisoyee has ever had any proprietary right in the mutta under his control, or any part of it. On the contrary, it is agreed that whatever he has held has been held on a mere service tenure, not by right of ownership. In respect of what he has enjoyed he has paid a sum by way of kattubadi or quit-rent. The Agent to the Governor, in his very careful judgment, summarizes as follows the evidence as to the present position of the bisoyee in his mutta and his relation to the Savaras, and there is no reason to suppose that these have been different in the past, except so far as will be noticed — " The general tenor of the evidence of the bisoyees, which is fairly consistent, is to the effect that they hold their muttas or ‘forts from Government on service tenure, that they have to keep up a certain establishment of paiks and maintaining (maintain ?) guards at certain ‘thanas or posts leading to the plains, and generally to assist Government officers in the maintenance of order and arrest of offenders. Each fort has its own boundaries, including forest lands, and is made up of a number of villages, each of which again has its own boundary. Each fort has its own boundaries, including forest lands, and is made up of a number of villages, each of which again has its own boundary. The remuneration of the bisoyees is derived partly from land cultivated by themselves, to which the Savaras contribute a certain amount of vetti or customary labour, while the paiks are remunerated either by grants of land or by payment in cash and grain. The Savaras have permanent wet and permanent dry cultivation ; they also practise ‘ kumri or podu cultivation. For the permanent cultivation they pay a fixed proportion of the produce to the bisoyees, but in regard to the kumri cultivation they receive a fixed fee, either one rupee per house or one putti of grain per house, from each . Savara family, besides sambolos or dallies of fruit and vegetables six times in the year. A Savara residing in one village cannot practise ‘ kumri cultivation in another village, and permission must be obtained from the head of the village and the bisoyee. The kattubadi is paid by the bisoyee to the plaintiff; but with the exception of this payment the bisoyee exercises absolute authority over the affairs of his fort, subject to Government control." In another passage the Governors agent correctly describes the situation of the maliahs, and defines the subject-matter of this suit— " The term maliahs, strictly speaking, means the frill country/ and is applied generally to the Eastern Ghats. For the purpose of this suit, however, the term Parlakimidi Maliahs is synonymous with the term the agency tracts of the Parlakimidi Taluk, comprising the eleven forts of the bisoyees. From the oral evidence and from Ex. W. (para. 2 of Russells report), it is clear that many of the villages contained ‘the this tract are situated in the plains, and are therefore not maliahs in the proper sense of the term. Page 82 of the District Manual shews that the forts of Gandahatti, Narayanapuram, Namanagaram, and Lavaniakota are situated in the low country, while a considerable number of villages in other forts are similarly situated. Hence the term maliahs throughout this suit is not used in its literal sense as hill country, but as the country comprised within the eleven forts of the bisoyees, and the terms Parlakimidi Maliahs and Parlakimidi Agency are interchangeable throughout wherever they are used in this judgment. Hence the term maliahs throughout this suit is not used in its literal sense as hill country, but as the country comprised within the eleven forts of the bisoyees, and the terms Parlakimidi Maliahs and Parlakimidi Agency are interchangeable throughout wherever they are used in this judgment. At the same time there are hills, in the zemindary proper, outside the maliahs, and Savaras also form a portion of the population of the ordinary tracts on these hills and on the country bordering on the maliahs." The bisoyees were formerly appointed by the zemindars of Parlakimidi; they were subject to their control, and they paid their kattubadi to them ; and this state of things continued until almost the close of the eighteenth century. At that time disturbances occurred in the district, culminating in actual rebellion, in which the then zemindar of Parlakimidi, Gajapati Deo, and some at least of the bisoyees of the maliahs, took part. In consequence of these events the Government of the day arrived at a decision which was finally embodied in a proclamation of the Governor-General issued in 1800, the draft of which is in evidence, to the effect that— " Gajapetty Deo is declared to have forfeited his zemindari for ever for the repeated breach of his engagements, for his disobedience of the orders of the Collector, and finally for the withholding the revenue collected by him under these circumstances of aggravation. " The inhabitants of Kimidi District and all whom it may concern are hereby commanded to pay strict obedience to the orders of the Company issued by the Collector who is directed to make the necessary arrangements for the future peace of the country, and for the collection of the revenue until the arrears shall be paid as well as to make agreements with and grant the cowle of Government to the bisoyees (their several maniam and their villages to be inserted here—a blank to be left for the Collector to fill up) who are from henceforward to pay their revenue directly to the Collector and to be for ever kept under the Companys immediate authority. " The Eight Honourable the Governor in Council in publishing these resolutions which have in view the maintenance of the supremacy of Government and the protection of the inhabitants at large, is at the same time pleased to announce that, as soon as these arrangements for the future tranquillity of the zemindari and security of the Companys revenue have been accomplished, he will be willing to temper this necessary exertion of the Companys power by an indulgent consideration for the descendants of Gajapetty Deo and to manifest his desire of maintaining these ancient families as far as the conduct of their principals may be consistent with the public safety, (in?) the possession of their hereditary rights by restoring his son Proshotam Narrain Deo to the lands of his ancestors, with the exception of those now held by the bisoyees which are hereby declared separated from the zemindari for ever." Prior to this forfeiture it would certainly have beep difficult to regard the maliahs in any other light than as forming part of the zemindari. The zemindar as such appointed the bisoyees; they were his servants and he received their quit-rents. Throughout the transactions which followed the maliahs are treated as something to be separated from the zemindari and to be dealt with by way of exception from it. But there can be no doubt that by the proclamation of forfeiture the rights of the zemindar over the maliahs ceased to exist in him and passed absolutely to the Government. And the previous state of things is only material so far as it throws light on the subsequent proceedings. Two years later, in 1802, Gajapati, the incriminated zemindar, having died in the meantime, steps were taken to carry out the policy of liberality indicated in the proclamation just cited. The first document of this period which it is necessary to notice is the report of a special Commission for completing the permanent settlement of certain lands, dated April 29, 1803. It recited the forfeiture incurred by Gajapati in 1800, and the intention then announced in favour of his son, the appointment in the interim of a manager on behalf of Government, the death of Gajapati in 1802, and the delivery of the zemindari to the authority of the young zemindar. The report then proceeded to deal with the revenue to be permanently assessed on the zemindari. The report then proceeded to deal with the revenue to be permanently assessed on the zemindari. The details of the calculations were a good deal discussed during the argument of the appeal; but, in the absence of explanations which could not now be btained, their Lordships do not venture to rely upon those details as affording assistance in the solution of the present question. They shew clearly that in ascertaining the basis on which the zemindari was to be assessed the quit-rents of the bisoyees were left out of the account; but they do not shew what it was in respect of which those quit-rents were payable. A certain jumma was recommended. The report proceeded — " Your Lordship in Council having by a proclamation bearing date the------of January 1800 exempted the possessions of the bisoyees from dependence in the zemindary of Kimidi, we have provided for that object by a separation to their payments from his jumma, and we beg leave to recommend with a view to arrange the future government of them with a due regard to their prejudices that the local authorities be from time to time required to gain correct information of the manners and customs of these people. "Mr. Cherry having paid much attention to clearing the passes in the country, we beg leave to recommend that an obligation be required from the zemindar of Kimidi to keep open those means of communication; that the names of the passes to be kept open be inserted by the Collector in the obligation; and that if Mr. Cherry should deem it advisable to clear the passes in a more effectual manner, authority may be granted by your Lordship in Council for that purpose." The Governor in Council, on May 6, 1803, accepted the recommendations of the Commission as to the jumma, and added " The recommendations of the Commission respecting the bisoyees .... are conformable to the intentions of the Board." In pursuance of this resolution a sanad was issued to the new zemindar, Purshottam Narain Deo. It is no longer forthcoming, but it has been assumed, and no doubt rightly, that the corresponding kabulyat, which is in evidence, correctly represents the terms of the sanad. The kabulyat bears date April 21,1804. It refers to the sanad as of May 6, 1803. It is no longer forthcoming, but it has been assumed, and no doubt rightly, that the corresponding kabulyat, which is in evidence, correctly represents the terms of the sanad. The kabulyat bears date April 21,1804. It refers to the sanad as of May 6, 1803. It says that the executant is " duly sensible of the important advantages which, under the blessing of God, may result to myself and the people of my zemindari from the arrangements established for the administration of justice and of the public revenue on permanent foundations." It undertakes to pay the jumma as permanently settled. It states that the permanent assessment is exclusive of certain matters, among which are all lands and russums or fees heretofore appropriated to the support of police establishments." It contains a further clause " The Government having charged itself with the maintenance of the police of the country is to defray the entire expense of that establishment; I nevertheless engage to aid and assist its officers in apprehending and securing offenders of all descrip tions, and to inquire and give notice to magistrates of all robbers and disturbers of the public peace who may be found or who may seek refuge in my zemindari." And it concludes " So long as I continue to perform the above stipulations and discharge the duties of allegiance to the British Government, its laws and regulations, which I now solemnly engage to do, I consider myself authorized and empowered to hold in perpetuity for myself, my heirs, successors and assigns, at the permanent assessment herein named, the zemindari of Kimidi." It is clear, therefore, that, while the zemindari generally was re-granted by Government in 1803 to the new zemindar, something was excepted from that grant, and from the assessment that formed the condition of the grant, which is variously described as " lands held by the bisoyees," " the possessions of the bisoyees," and "all lands and russums or fees heretofore appropriated to the support of police establishments." The first and principal question argued upon this appeal is as to the extent of the exception thus loosely expressed. For the appellant it was contended that the exception applied only to such lands (said to be small in amount) as were actually occupied and cultivated by the bisoyees themselves, and that the maliahs generally passed under the re-grant as part of the zemindari. For the appellant it was contended that the exception applied only to such lands (said to be small in amount) as were actually occupied and cultivated by the bisoyees themselves, and that the maliahs generally passed under the re-grant as part of the zemindari. And that is a possible construction, and would perhaps give legitimate effect to the words used. It was contended on the other side that the exception extended to all the lands under the control of the bisoyees— that is to say, the maliahs; and strong arguments were adduced in favour of this view. The mischief that led to the change of arrangement was a combination of zemindar and bisoyees hostile to Government. The object of the change was to separate the bisoyees entirely from the zemindar, and make them mere servants and under the complete control of Government, and as one of the means to that end to make them entirely dependent upon Government for their remuneration. But what has already then said shews that the benefits enjoyed by the bisoyees, and held by them on service tenures, included not only the lands under their cultivation, but also fees and other dues received from the Savaras throughout the whole of their muttas. Both the Courts in India have adopted the latter view of the extent of the exception, and their Lord-ships are not prepared to dissent from their conclusion. It follows that the maliahs did not pass under the re-grant of the zemindari in 1803, but remained the property of Government, as they had been since the forfeiture of 1800. The next transaction calling for notice was in 1823. By that time it was found that the attempt to keep the bisoyees under the immediate control of the Collector and to recover their quit-rents directly had proved a failure. And accordingly a new arrangement was made, which was thus recorded in a Government Resolution of January 24, 1823 " The Governor in Council is of opinion that the bisoyees and their dependent peons, who were a good many years ago separated from the jurisdiction of the Rajah of Kimidi in Ganjam and placed immediately under the Collector, should be transferred again to the Rajah and required to pay their quit-rent through him. In consequence of their local situation, the authority over them can only be exercised by the Rajah and not by the Collector and has consequently been lost." This arrangement was carried out, but under it the zemindar incurred no liability for the quit-rents of the bisoyees; he had only to account for what he succeeded in collecting. It cannot be said that this arrangement conferred any proprietary right in the maliahs upon the zemindar. The next change was in 1835, and its nature is stated in a resolution of Government of September 1 in that year — " The Right Honourable the Governor in Council is pleased to grant authority for annexing to the Kimidi Zemindari the Doratanam Moccassah villages which have become forfeitures to the State by the rebellion of the Moccassadars, on condition of the zemindari being charged in future with the tribute of the bisoyees in addition to the peshcush, and of the villages being always retained directly under the zemindar, otherwise they shall be liable to resumption." Any argument that might otherwise have been urged in favour of inferring proprietary right from the responsibility for revenue imposed by this arrangement is excluded by the fact that the consideration to the zemindar for his increased liability is expressly stated, and it consisted, not in any rights conferred in the maliahs, but in the grant of certain villages outside them. So far as concerns the question now in dispute, therefore, matters remained as they were before. It was next contended that the appellant and his predecessors in title had acquired a title against the Crown by sixty years adverse possession. Upon this question, which is one of fact, both Courts in India have found against the appellant; and their Lordships do not see how any other conclusion could have been arrived at. The only question that remains for consideration is the question upon which the Courts in India have differed—that of estoppel. It appears that for some years, in consequence of the disability or incapacity of successive zemindars, the zemindari of Parlakimidi was under the charge of the Court of Wards. And during the whole or part of this time the view prevailed that the maliah forests belonged to the zemindari. It appears that for some years, in consequence of the disability or incapacity of successive zemindars, the zemindari of Parlakimidi was under the charge of the Court of Wards. And during the whole or part of this time the view prevailed that the maliah forests belonged to the zemindari. The officers acting under the Court of Wards, the principal of whom was, of course, the Collector of the district, worked those forests for the benefit of the zemindari, and no one on behalf of Government disputed the propriety of what was being done. But these facts could bear only upon the question of title by adverse possession, which has already been dealt with. It is further shewn, however, that while the Court of Wards was in charge, money out of the funds of the zemindari was expended upon the making of roads in the maliahs, partly, it would seem, to increase the profits derived from the working of the forests, and partly for objects of more general importance. And this expenditure was approved and encouraged by the Government. The agent to the Governor who tried this case thought that these facts estopped the defendant (respondent) from denying the appellants title to the rnaliahs. From this view the High Court dissented. Their Lordships agree with the High Court. The Court of Wards, on behalf of the zemindar, was in possession of the maliah forests under the mistaken idea that they belonged to g the zemindari. The Government officials, under the same mistake, acquiesced in that possession, and, while that state of things continued, they encouraged such an expenditure of zemindari funds upon the maliahs as seemed good in the public interest. It seems impossible to put the appellants case higher than this. And their Lordships can see in this no such representation as could give rise to the estoppel contended for. Their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal should be dismissed. The appellant will pay the costs.