Judgment V. RAMASWAMI ( 1 ) THESE appeals are brought against the judgment and decree in A. S. Nos. 223 and 224 of 1951, 264 to 273 of 1952, 275 of 1952 and 277 to 279 of 1952 of the Madras High Court dated 10/01/1956 affirming the judgment and decree in O. S. Nos. 75, 77 to 81 of 1948 and 19 to 22, 24 to 26, 28 and 30 to 31 of 1950 of the Subordinate Judge, Tanjore. ( 2 ) THE appellant instituted the above-mentioned suits for recovery of possession from the respective defendants of the disputed lands and for payment of damages at the rate of Rs. 50. 00 per annum per acre. The case of the appellant was that the disputed lands which were purchased by him by a sale deed dated 11/11/1948 (Ex. A-145) are situated in Orathur Padugai which is attached to Pannimangalam, one of the villages comprised in what is known as the "tanjore Palace Estate", that the said lands are not situated in an estate as defined by the Madras Estates Land Act 1 of 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the act), and in any event the said lands are private lands of the appellant and not ryoti lands as defined in the Act and the various defendants are trespassers in unlawful occupation of the lands and had no right to continue in possession and were therefore liable to ejectment. The appellant also claimed that the defendants were liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 50. 00 per annum per acre in respect of the lands in their unlawful occupation. The defence in all the suits was substantially the same. It was contended by the defendants that the disputed lands are situated in an estate within the meaning of S. 3 (2) (d) of the Act, that the lands are ryoti lands in which they have permanent right of occupancy and that they are not "private lands" as alleged by the appellant and the civil court had therefore no jurisdiction to entertain the suits and the Revenue Courts alone had jurisdiction. By his two judgments dated 31/10/1950 and 2/02/1951, the Subordinate Judge, Tanjore dismissed the suits, holding that the lands were situated in an estate and were ryoti lands in which the defendants were entitled to occupancy rights. By his two judgments dated 31/10/1950 and 2/02/1951, the Subordinate Judge, Tanjore dismissed the suits, holding that the lands were situated in an estate and were ryoti lands in which the defendants were entitled to occupancy rights. The appellant took the matter in appeal to the Madras High Court which affirmed the decision of the trial court and dismissed all the appeals. ( 3 ) THE two principal questions which are presented for determination in these appeals are : (1) whether the suit-lands are located in an estate within the meaning of S. 3 (2) (d) of the Act, and (2) if the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, whether the suit-lands are private lands or ryoti lands as defined in the Act. ( 4 ) SECTION 3 (2) (d) of the Act, as originally enacted stales: "3. In this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context :- ( 5 ) THE history of what is known as the Tanjore Palace Estate is well-known and will be found in various reported decisions of the Judicial Committee and of the Madras High Court See Jijoyiamba Bayi Saiba v. Kamakshi Bayi Saiba, (1866-68) 3 MHCR 424: Sundaram Ayyar v. Ramachandra Ayyar, ILR 40 Mad 389 = (AIR 1918 PC 435) (FB); Maharaja of Kolhapur v. Sundaram Iyer, ILR 48 Mad 1 = ( AIR 1925 Mad 497 , and Chota Raja Saheb Mohitai v. Sundaram Iyer, 63 Ind App 224 = (AIR 1936 PC 131 ). In 1799, Serfoji, the then Raja of Tanjore, surrendered his territory into the hands of the East India Company, but he was allowed to retain possession of certain villages and lands which constituted his private property. When his son the last Raja died in 1855 without leaving male issue, the East India Company took possession of all his properties including his private property. Thereupon the senior widow, Kamachee Boye Sahaba filed a Bill on the Enquiry Side of the Supreme Court of Madras, and obtained a decree that the seizure of the private properties was wrong. On appeal by the Secretary of State in Council of India the Privy Council reversed the decree, and ordered the dismissal of the Bill. Thereupon the senior widow, Kamachee Boye Sahaba filed a Bill on the Enquiry Side of the Supreme Court of Madras, and obtained a decree that the seizure of the private properties was wrong. On appeal by the Secretary of State in Council of India the Privy Council reversed the decree, and ordered the dismissal of the Bill. Thereafter a memorial was submitted to the Queen and in 1862 the Government of India which had succeeded the East India Company "sanctioned the relinquishment of the whole of the landed property of the Tanjore Raj in favour of the heirs of the late Raja. " Under instructions from the Government of India, the Government of Madras, on August 21, 1862, passed an order the material part of which is as follows: "in Col. Durands letter above recorded the Government of India have furnished their instructions with reference to the disposal of the landed property of the Tanjore Raj regarding which this Government addressed them under date the 17th May last. Their decision is to the effect, that since it is doubtful whether the lands in question can be legally dealt with as State property, and since the plea in equity and policy, for treating them as the private property of the Raja is so strong that it commands the unanimous support of the members of the Madras Government, the whole of the lands are to be relinquished in favour of the heirs of the late Raja (page 228 ). " THE Tanjore Palace Estate came into being as a result of this grant. ( 6 ) THE question in these appeals is whether the property involved in the suits being a part of the Tanjore Palace Estate can be considered to be an "estate" within the meaning of the term in the Act. It was conceded by the Counsel for the appellant that if it was part of an inam it would be an estate within the meaning of that Act. It was, however, contended that the manner in which the property reverted to the widows of the Raja in 1862 after an act of State did not show that the estate was freshly grunted out was restored to the widows who enjoyed troth the warams, in the same way us the warams were enjoyed before. It was, however, contended that the manner in which the property reverted to the widows of the Raja in 1862 after an act of State did not show that the estate was freshly grunted out was restored to the widows who enjoyed troth the warams, in the same way us the warams were enjoyed before. To put it differently, the argument was that the effect of restoration or relinquishment was only the undoing of the wrong and therefore if the villages were the private properties of the Raja at the time of the seizure then the same character is maintained when they were handed back to his widow. The contention was that what actually happened in 1862 was the restoration of the status quo ante rather than a fresh grant by the British Government. The argument is not a new one but has been raised before and rejected in a number of authorities. In (1866-88) 3 MHCR 424 it was held by the Madras High Court that the Government Order. 1862 was a grant of grace and favour to persons who had forfeited all claims to the personal properties of the Rajah by the act of State and was not a revival of any antecedent rights which they might have had. A similar opinion of the grant was expressed in a Full Bench case of the Madras High Court in ILR 40 Mad 389 = (AIR 1918 Mad (FB ). But in ILR 48 Mad 1 = (AIR1925 Mad 497), Spencer, O. C. J. , appeared to doubt the decision of Scotland, C. J. , in (1866-68) 3 MHCR 424 that there was a grant of grace and favour in 1862. A similar view was taken in Sundaram v. Deva Sankara, AIR 1918 Mad 428, but these cases have been subsequently explained or not accepted on this point. In T. R. Bhavani Shankar Joshi v. Somasundara Moopanar, (1963) 2 SCR 421 = ( AIR 1965 SC 316 ), it was held by this Court that the act of State having made no distinction between the private and public properties of the Rajah the private properties were lost by the act of State leaving no right outstanding in the existing claimants. The Government Order, 1862 was therefore a fresh grant due to the bounty of the Government and not because of any antecedent rights in the grantees. The Government Order, 1862 was therefore a fresh grant due to the bounty of the Government and not because of any antecedent rights in the grantees. It was pointed out that the words "relinquished" or "restored, in the Government Order did not have the legal effect of reviving any such right because no rights survived the act of State. The root of title of the grantees was the Government Order of 1862 and it was therefore held that the restoration amounted to a grant in inam by the British Government within the meaning of the Act. But the question whether with regard to any particular area what was granted in inam is a whole village or less than a whole village is a question that has to be decided with reference to the facts of each particular case. ( 7 ) THE question therefore arises whether the area in question, viz. , Orathur Padugai, constitutes a whole village and therefore an estate within the meaning of S. 3 (2) (d) of the Act. It was contended for the appellant that the suit-lands were not comprised in a whole inam village. The contention was rejected by both the lower courts which concurrently held that the lands were located in Orathur Padugai, a whole village by itself of a named village and therefore an estate within the meaning of the Act. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the finding of the lower courts is vitiated in law because it is based on no evidence. In our opinion, there is no justification for this argument. On behalf of the respondents reference was made to Ex. A-64, Pannimangalam Vattam Jamabandhi Account individual-war, Fasli 1298 which shows in column No. 3 Orathur Padugai as a village. Similarly, in Ex. A-78 (a), Cess account for Pannimangalam Vattam and Ex. A-79, the Village war Jamabandhi Account Fasli 1309 Orathur Padugai village is shown as a whole village. Exhibit A-82. Village war Jamabandhi Individual war, Fasli 1310, Ex. A-84, Jamabandhi Ghoshpara for the village, Fasli 1311 and Exs. A-153 to A-157 all mention Orathur Padugai as a village. All the leases, lease auctions and receipts given for payment of rent speak of Orathur Padugai as a separate village. Even the sale deeds, Exs. B-6, B-31, B-32 and B-33 contain a recital of Orathur Padugai as a separate village. A-84, Jamabandhi Ghoshpara for the village, Fasli 1311 and Exs. A-153 to A-157 all mention Orathur Padugai as a village. All the leases, lease auctions and receipts given for payment of rent speak of Orathur Padugai as a separate village. Even the sale deeds, Exs. B-6, B-31, B-32 and B-33 contain a recital of Orathur Padugai as a separate village. It is manifest therefore that there is sufficient material to show that at least since 1830 onwards Orathur Padugai is a whole village. On behalf of the appellant reference was made to Ex. A-128 and Ex. A-129 dated April 6, 1800 and July 5, 1800. Exhibit A-128 is a letter from the Resident, Tanjore to the Secretary to the Government of Madras in which there is a reference to Pannimungalam. It is stated therein that "the fields of Pannymungalam to the westward of Tanjore which from time immemorial have been reserved for the pasture of the circar cow do remain in the Rajas possession. There is neither village nor cultivation on these lands". In answer to this letter there is a communication from the Chief Secretary to the Government to the Resident, Tanjore Ex. A-129. In para 5 of this letter it is stated: "the fields of Pucanymangalam containing neither village nor cultivation shall remain in the hands of Rajah for the pasturage of His Excellencys cows. " Much reliance was placed by Counsel for the appellant on these two documents, but the High Court has rightly pointed out that the identity of the lands referred to in Exs. A-128 and A-129 is doubtful. The lands in suit are situated at least 30 miles south-east of Tanjore town in Mannargudi taluk but in Exs. A-128 and A-129 the lands are described as westward of Tanjore. That there was Orathur village in existence even as-early as 1830 is clear from Ex. A-151 because in describing certain boundaries of another village it is mentioned as to the north of assessed Orathur village nadappu karai (bound pathway ). Exhibit A-4 of 1868 is a Debit and Credit Balance account relating to Orathur Parugai attached to Mukasa Pannimangalam Thattimal. It is clear from this Exhibit that the entire village except the waste land was assessed. From Exhibit A-5 dated September 4, 1870. Exhibit A-4 of 1868 is a Debit and Credit Balance account relating to Orathur Parugai attached to Mukasa Pannimangalam Thattimal. It is clear from this Exhibit that the entire village except the waste land was assessed. From Exhibit A-5 dated September 4, 1870. it appears that the punja lands in Orathur village were taken on lease from the Collector of Tanjore who was the receiver and manager of the estate of the Rajah of Tanjore for a period of 5 years on payment of a toted sum of Rs 122/9/3. Exhibits A-7, A-8, A-12 to A-l6 and A-18 are either Adaiyolai muchilikas or lease deeds for leasing the lands in Orathur Padugai village for a term granted by the Collector of Tanjore. In all these documents the description is that the lands are situated in Orathur Padugai in Mokhasa Pannymangalam Thattimal. The documents range between the years 1870 to 1875. In Ex. A-63 which is the Individual war settlement register for Pannymangalam vattam for fasli 1296 against column 6 it is stated that the income in the matter of the amani cultivation of sugarcane, etc. , on 95 kullis is Rs. 4 and it is in Orathur Padugai village, Pannymangalam vattam. Exhibit A-61 is the debit and credit balance account of Orathur Padugai for fasli 1294. Similarly, in Ex. A-64, the individual war settlement register for Pannimangalam vattam, column 3 relating to the village of Orathur states that the Orathur Padugai is a village and the vattam is Pannimangalam. There are similar descriptions of Orathur as a village in Ex A-65 which is the settlement register for Pannimangalam vattam for fasli 1297 Exhibit A-80 contains a similar description of Orathur village in Pannimangalam vattam. Exhibits A-153 to A-155 and A-157 are all lease deeds between the years from 1901 to 1906 relating to lease of lands in Orathur padugai. It is manifest that there is sufficient evidence to show that from 1868 right up to 1907 Orathur Padugai was considered as a separate village. It was contended for the respondents that even after the passing of the Act Orathur Padugai was treated as a separate village. Reference was made in this connection to a number of documents, Exs. It is manifest that there is sufficient evidence to show that from 1868 right up to 1907 Orathur Padugai was considered as a separate village. It was contended for the respondents that even after the passing of the Act Orathur Padugai was treated as a separate village. Reference was made in this connection to a number of documents, Exs. A-158, A-105, A-159, A-106, A-116, A-161, B-117, A-117 to A-120, B-18, A-121, A-162 and A-163 In our opinion, the finding of the lower courts that Orathur Padugai is a whole village and therefore constitutes an estate within the meaning of the Act is supported by proper evidence and Counsel for the appellant is unable to make good his argument that the finding of the lower courts is in any way defective in law. ( 8 ) WE proceed to consider the next question arising in this case, viz. , whether the suit-lands are private lands within the meaning of S 3 (10) (b) of the Act which reads as follows: "3 In this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context- ( 9 ) FOR the reasons expressed we hold that the judgment of the Madras High Court dated 10/01/1956 is correct and these appeals must be dismissed with costs-one set of hearing fee. Appeals dismissed. .