ORDER
1. The Subordinate Judge has misunderstood the decision in Sundaram Iyer v.” Ramchandra Ayyar [1917] 10 Mad. 386, which applied to only one village in the estate. He will submit the findings on the following questions: (A) Whether the suit village is such a village as is contemplated by Section 3 (2) (d), Estates Lands Act? and (B) Whether apart from that Act, the defendant has occupancy rights.
2. The findings will be based on the evidence already on record and be submitted by 1st August 1926.
3. Both parties will be at liberty to file objections to the said findings within ten days after notice of return of the same shall have been posted up in this Court.
4. (In compliance with the above order the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam submitted the findings in the negative on both the questions.)
* * * * * *
JUDGMENT
5. Two questions were referred for findings. Mr. Rangachariar has confined his argument to the first. He concedes that, when the village was’ forefeited the Rajah was entitled to both varams. That was in the year 1856 and there was a regrant or relinquishment by-Government six years later. The question is what was re-granted. As to that there. can be no doubt. The letter of the Secretary to the Government of India, Foreign Department, quoted on p. 98 of the ruling reported in Maharaja of Kolhapur v. Sundaram Iyer A.I.R. 1925 Mad. 497 stated that the ” Governor-General in Council sanctions the relinquishment of the whole of the lands in favour of the heirs of the late Rajah.” Nothing could be clearer.
6. What was relinquished was exactly what had been taken. There is nothing to show that anything was reserved. Mr. Rangachariar points out that there was a ryotwari settlement in Tanjore District in the year 1S59 and suggests, that the forefeited estate must have been subjected to that settlement. The evidence is all the other way. The Collector of Tanjore was a receiver of the estate from 1869-1898. During that period leases were issued to the tenants under which they agreed to surrender at the end of the years’ tenancy. In Ex. E. series the village is described as “ekabogam,” a description which is quite inconsistent with the case of the respondents.
7. It is unnecessary to go further into the evidence, which is all one way. We accept the findings, reverse the order of the Subordinate Judge and restore the decree of the District Munsif with costs throughout.
