9911796707
TMI Blog1929 (3) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as. These villages were purchased in 1879 by the plaintiff's father from the then holder and mansabdar of the Totapalli estate. 3. In the years 1913 and 1915 the tahsildar of Peddapur collected from tenants of the plaintiff in two of the twenty-seven villages royalties or penalties for the removal of gravel and stone from hills within the boundaries of such two villages. He did so on the footing that the underground rights in the villages belonged to the Government. 4. Thereupon the plaintiff launched in the Court of the District Munsif of Peddapur a suit against the defendant, the Secretary of State for India in Council, claiming a declaration of his title to the underground rights in his villages formerly part of the Totapalli e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n mansabdar by plaintiff's father in or about 1879, They were subsequently resumed by Government and enfranchised in plaintiff's father's favour and quit rent imposed on them. 7. As will be seen from the succeeding narrative, the plaintiff subsequently changed his ground more than once. 8. On December 18, 1916, the District Munsif pronounced judgment in the plaintiff's favour so far as his title to the underground rights was concerned, and gave him a declaration accordingly, but did not grant him any injunction, and rejected his claim for a refund of the royalties or penalties which had in fact been paid not by him but by his tenants. The District Munsif appears to have held that the alleged enfranchisement did not en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere had been an enfranchisement by the Government which carried the underground rights to the plaintiff's father, but that in fact what had taken place had not amounted to an enfranchisement at all. The learned judges however directed the trial of the further issue, because the plaintiff's counsel had presented to them an argument to the effect that apart from the alleged enfranchisement his client's predecessors in title had always held the estate subject to a burden of service and not merely in lieu of wages for service. This fact, if established, would (he had contended) lend strength to the plaintiff's claim to the underground rights. The suit was accordingly retried by the District Munsif. On June 21, 1920, he again gav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the Totapalli estate and that of an estate held by a paliagar. 15. It is against this judgment that the plaintiff now appeals. 16. The history of the Totapalli estate prior to the early part of the nineteenth century is not free from obscurity. No grant of the estate has been produced. The material placed before the lower Courts consisted of (a) Mr. James Grant's Political Survey of the Northern Circars, written about 1785 and annexed to the Fifth Report of the Select Committee on the Affairs of the East India Company; (6) Morris's account of the Godaveri District, published in 1868 under Government authority; (c) The Godaveri Gazetteer, a Government publication of 1907; (d) the Government documents relating to the transa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Totapalli estate as a service inam and dealt with it on that footing in 1881 to 1883 by making a settlement in respect of it which was expressly stated not to amount to a permanent settlement or enfranchisement. 18. Mr. Grant, in his survey of 1785, describes Totapalli as a small hilly country and a region of tigers. The obscurity of its early history may in part be due to its lack of importance. 19. At any rate their Lordships are of opinion that there is a definite finding by the Subordinate, Judge to the effect that the estate was originally held under a grant from the zamindar of Peddapur subject to a fixed annual rent and an obligation to provide a military force. After an examination of the materials placed before the lower C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the grant found by the Subordinate Judge. 23. There was, in fact, no evidence that the grant included the underground rights or that the minerals had ever been worked by the mansabdars of Totapalli or by any of their alienees. The fact that minerals were in terms reserved in leases to tenants granted by the plaintiff and his father cannot in their Lordships' opinion be evidence that the underground rights passed from the zamindar of Peddapur under the original grant to the mansabdar of Totapalli. 24. The lower Courts based their conclusion that the underground rights passed by the original grant upon a presumption that in the absence of any evidence as to the terms of the grant the grantor passed all that he had to the grantee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
