AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1.To enable us to decide this appeal satisfactorily, we consider it desire-able to allow the parties to adduce further evidence on the following point
(1) what, if anything, passed to the grantee under Exhibit XX under the words besides poramboke'' and whether she obtained a right to the
channels conveying water to (he tanks irrigating the lands of the Lakkamdiddi village or to those tanks themselves.
The lower Court has not dealt with this point in its judgment, but appears to have assumed that the Government did not reserve the channels and
tanks at. the time of the inarm settlement.
We request the District Judge to take the additional evidence that the parties may adduce and to submit the same together with his opinion on
the effect of such evidence within one month after the reopening of the District Court after the recess.
In pursuance of the above order, the District Judge of Ganjam submitted the following
FINDING
In obedience to the High Court''s order of 13th February 1911, I have taken the additional evidence adduced by the parties and I submit the
same along with my following opinion on the effect of such evidence on the point (1) what, if anything, passed to the grantee under Exhibit 20
under the words besides poramboke"" and whether she obtained a right to the channels conveying: water to the tanks irrigating the lands of the
Lakkamdiddi village or to those tanks themselves.
The additional evidence consists of the ""documents G. to N. on plaintiff''s side and of the documents 21-(a), 22-(h) on defendant''s side as also
the oral evidence of one additional witness on defendant''s side. The oral evidence of the witness is of very little use. He speaks to the payment of
water-cess by him and his co-inamdars to the Government for water supplied to raise second crops on the excess area over the mamool area
cultivated in the village of Gokayavalasa. He also speaks to the inamdars of the neighbouring village of Satyavaram being under a similar liability.
The liability of these two villages for water-cess on excess area for second crop cultivation depends on the ownership of the water flowing through
the Komarthy branch of the Polaki main channel and the ownership of the beds of the Komarthy branch channel and the Polaki main channel. The
witness clearly admits in his evidence that the Government D. P. W. is in charge of the Polaki and Komarthy channels, that is, that the inamdars
have no possession or control over those channels and the beds of those channels. Exhibits 22 series are accounts of water cess collected from the
inamdars in those two villages. These accounts also might be set aside as of little value in coming to a conclusion on the question whether the
inamdars of the plaint inam village of Lakkamdiddi are entitled to the beds of the plaint Yellamanchilli channel and its sub-channels so far as those
beds lie within the limits of the inam village of Lakkamdiddi. The Yellamanchilli channel branches off from the Garebula Gedda hill-stream, whereas
the Komarthi channel branches from the Government Polaki channel and irrigates Government villages also. This. jungle-stream (Garebula Gedda)
in its upper portion (above the surplus weir) is used only for the irrigation of zemin and inam lands.
I shall, therefore, consider the other additional evidence taken in the case and comment upon it in the light of the other facts of the case. The
plaint village of Lakkamdiddi was one of the villages in the Chicacole haveli. Before 1766, the haveli belonged to the Mogul Emperor. The
Emperor issued a Firman granting the management of the Circars to the East India Company. The East India Company leased the haveli lands in
Chicacole in 1767 to one Sitaramraz, the brother of Vaziaramraz, the then zemindar of Vizianag-ram (see District Manual, page 212). This
Sitaramaraz seems to have at once granted the plaint village of Lakkamdiddi within the Chicacole haveli as an Agraharam inam to a Brahmin,
named, Kannepalli Ram-avadhannlu for subsistence. The village consists of no vrittis because it was Yekabhoga Agrahar or an Agrahar that was in
sole possession of a single individual up to the 8th February 1861, on which date Kannepalli Venkata Narasoo (the holder of the inam) died
leaving a childless young widow by name Kannepalli Venkata-rathnamma (see recitals in Exhibit 16).
In 1802, the District of Ganjam consisted of four havelis (including the Chicacole haveli) and 21 zemindaris. The haveli lands were resumed by
the Government from the temporary lessees and sold in lots in 1803 and 1804 to the highest bidders on permanent settlement. Twenty proprietary
estates were formed by the sale of the Chicacole haveli lands in 1803. One of them is Jarjangi and another is Urlam. The plaint Agraharam village
of Lakkamdiddi is within the proprietary estate of Jarjangi (or Jarjangi Gangaram). The proprietors of these twenty estates were entitled to get only
Kattubadi or a fixed low rent from the inamdars of the inam villages included in their proprietary estates, though they were, of course, full
proprietors of the ordinary zeroyati lands in their estates. The Government also seems to have reserved to themselves the ""reversionary right in the
inam tenures included in these proprietary estates when the Government granted sanads to the proprietors for their respective estates"" (see page
149 of Exhibit N). The Kattubadi rent paid by the inamdar to the proprietor is also called Shrotriem when paid by Brahmin inamdars for their
Agraharam inams. The words Agraharam and Shrotriem inam seem to be used in the same sense. In the inam Settlement. papers (Exhibit N page
330), Shrotriem is stated to be ""a general term for all favourably assessed villages held by Brahmins""; see also Wilson''s Glossary, 1855 Edition,
page 11). Again at page 154 of Exhibit N, (sic) are treated under whole village inam"" and are said to mean villages ""granted to Brahmins"". There
can be no doubt that Lakkamdiddi was an Ekbhog Agraharam ''whole village inam"" enjoyed by Brahmin inamdars and has been paying a
favourable Kattubadi or Jodi of Rs. 212-8 to the Jarjangi Estate proprietors from 1803 up to date, the inam having been created about 1 1/2
centuries ago. (There seems to have been an account called the gudikat account prepared in Fasli 1226 of the inam lands included in the
proprietary estates). Besides the major whole village inams (or sometimes, carved out of such inams), there are minor inams which relate to grants
of defined extents of lands as contrasted with grants of entire villages. (See the distinction between whole, village inams and minor inams in para.
29 page 155 of Exhibit N).
The rights of Government over the lands of these inam villages seem not to have been ever defined unambiguously. A reversionary right to
resume the inams on failure of direct lineal heirs seems to have been always asserted by Government. In Gunnaiyan v. Kamakchi Ayyar 26 M.P
389; Sir V. Bhashyam lyengar, J., says at page 345: ""According to the theory of the common law of the land...succession"" (to inams grants) ""is, or
at any rate is supposed to be, limited to the undivided brothers and to the direct lineal heirs, including a daughter''s son, of the last incumbent, as
also his widow and failing them, to the direct lineal heirs of the original grantee. And under that law, it is, or it is supposed to be, competent for
Government to resume personal inams, when the reversion falls in...by reason of the extinction of direct lineal heirs of the body of the original
grantee"".... The question as to whether the Crown has such prerogative reversionary right in the case of hereditary personal inams has never been
subjected to the test of a judicial decision, for the simple reason that claims in respect of personal inams, which have not been enfranchised, are
exempt from the cognizance of Civil Courts and can be adjudicated upon only by the Governor in Council or other Executive Authority.... The
Government, of course, was not bound to exercise its right of resumption and it was open to it to exercise it only partially and surrender its
reversionary rights. The declared policy of Government, when the Inam Commissioner was appointed in 1859 and rules framed for his guidance,
was to waive its right of resumption and enfranchise personal inams and convert them into ordinary heritable property and forego its reversionary
right in consideration of the holder of the inam agreeing to pay a quit rent, the rates of which varied with reference to the value and prospect of the
reversionary claim of the Government in each case.
In 1854), Jarjangi was the 6th of the 28 proprietary estates then existing within the Ganjam District, The Government wished to give up their
reversionary interests in the whole village inams and similar inams (excluding service inams) situated within the limits of the zetnindaris and of the
proprietary estates in the Ganjam District after fixing a permanent quit-rent based on the value of the cultivated lands in the inam village,
Porambokes as such yielding no income and having no market value. The Deputy Collector, Sudarsana Row, as Inam Commissioner, was
directed to fix such values, that is, to find out the net income of the villages. He prepared the register Exhibit 16 for the plaint inam village of
Lakkamdiddi. The total area of the village was taken from the old gudikat account of Fasli 1226 as 266 1/2 graces or 533 acres (2 graces making
one acre). The 533 acres were classified as follows:
Acres.
Poramboke consisting of tanks,
village sites, paths, channels,
burial grounds, pasture lands, etc. 116
Personal and service innms (which
were not settled then) ... 34
Waste ... 8
Remaining cultivated and cultivable
lands ... 375
(249 acres cultivated wet, 13 acres cultivated
tope, and 113 acres cultivated dry).
The whole village was an Ekbhog inam (as already said) till the middle of the 19th century (though a few minor personal and service inams
aggregating 34 acres had been created). Then, 1/10th of the village area seems to have passed to one Ravi Janaki Ramayya by a Court auction
sale. The 375 acres was afterwards enjoyed by Kaunepaili Venkatarathnamma and by this Ravi Janakiramayya in the proportion of 9/10th and
1/10th accordingly, that is, about 340 acres by Venkataratnamma and 35 acres by Jauaki Ramayya.
The Inam Deputy Collector recornended that in the particulars to be entered in the title deeds"" (or deeds) to be issued for the village, 340 acres
should be entered in the name of Kannepalli Venkatarath-namtna and 35 acres in the name of Janaki Ramayya (see Exhibit No. 16).
Venkataratnamma was to pay Rs. 297 as quit-rent at the highest rate of 1/2 to � because Government''s reversionary rights would fall in as soon
as she died, while Ravi Janaki Ramayya was charged a quit-rent of only 9 Rapees (at 1/8 th rate as Government''s reversionary expectancy was
very remote).
Two separate title deeds were issued accordingly to K. Venkataratnamma and Janaki Ramayya in 1867. Neither of these is, forthcoming now.
Venkataratnamma lost her title-deed of ''67 and Ravi Janaki Ramayya is dead and his grandson, who was summoned to produce his title-deed of
''6 7, could not or would not produce it. The Settlement proceedings began in 1859. The order confirming the Inam Deputy Collector''s
recommendations was passed in February 1865 and the title deeds were issued in February 1867. The form of grants then obtaining in respect of
whole village inam title deeds appears from Exhibits K, K 7, K-10, K-ll, L 1, 2/(a) and 2/l (b). The form in the 1st page first sets out the grantee''s
present title (which is acknowledged in para. 1 of the 1st page by the Governor in Council) and is then followed by the Government''s proposals
(in paras. 3 and 4) to give up their reversionary rights in consideration of a quit rent. Then on the 2nd page, the conversion into free-hold in favour
of the grantee is entered as the grantee had agreed to pay the quit-rent demanded, It is the entry on the 2nd page that extinguishes the
Government''s reversionary claims. The form in page 1 paras. 1 to 3 is as follows:
On behalf of the Governor in Council of Madras, I acknowledge your title to the Shrotriem village of-claimed to be of-acres of dry land and-
acres of wet land besides poramboke.
This inam is subject to a Jodi or quit-rant of-and is hereditary but it is not otherwise transferable; and in the event of failure of lineal heirs, it will
lapse to the estate.
On Your agreeing to pay an annual quit-rent of-inclusive of the Jodi already charged on the land as above said, your inam tenure will be
converted into a permanent free-hold.
I take it that Kannepalli Venkatarat- namma got her title deed in February 1867 in this form for 9/10ths of the area of the Shrotriem whole
village inam of Lakkamdiddi (340 acres of dry and wet lands Besides Poramboke"") and Ravi Janaki got a similar title deed for 35 acres '' Basides
Poramboke"". It has to be observed that in the case of minor or subsidiary inami, the title deeds issued about that time do not contain the
manuscript additional words ''''Besides Poramboke"". (See Exhibits K8, K9, K12, K13 which relate to small defined extents of 1 acre, 6 acres, 2
acres and 7 1/100 of an acre which had been granted as inam).
As I said before, the major inam title-deeds issued between 1863 and 1S67 were in the form of Exhibit K1, K7, etc. Exhibit 21 (a) and
Exhibit 21 (b) filed on defendant''s side also contain the additional words '' Besides Poramboke"" as they are also grants of the whole Shrotriem
Villages of Gokayavalasa and Satyavaram and not minor grants of small areas within a whole village. In December 1867, the Madras Government
evidently wanted to intioduce a bill in respect of the form of title deeds for the various descriptions of Inams (see pages 86 to 94 of Exhibit N
showing the old forms). The Inam Commissioner then suggested (in January 1868) that in para. 1 in the form of title deeds, the words ""claimed to
be of"" should be substituted by the words claimed to consist of the right of receiving the rent or tax payable to Government on."" In July 1868, the
Advocate-General thought that the Government of Madras had no right to issue deeds in its own name and suggested (among other changes) that
in para. 1, the words ""acting on behalf of the Secretary of State"" should be introduced after the words ""the Governor in Council of Madras"" and
that all title-deeds should be re-issued with the necessary alteration (See pages 82 to 302 of Exhibit N which deal with these matters).''At last, Act
VIII of 1869 was passed giving effect to the views of the Inam Commissioner in his letter of January 1868; and all title deeds subsequently issued
omitted the use of words which might enable all kinds of inamdars to claim proprietary rights in the soil which they '' would not otherwise possess
and it made clear that only the rights of Government were intended to be granted and that no proprietary rights in the soil (which did not already
exist in any particular inam-dar) were intended to be newly given.
Kannapalli Venkatarathnamma evidently wanted about 1898 a renewal of her lost title deed of 1867 to 9/10th, of the area of the Lakkimdiddi
Major inam village. Exhibit 20 was issued to her accordingly on 20th June 1898. This title deed was issued in a form which varies from the old
form of 1864 to 1867 in the following particulars, (a) The words ""acting on behalf of the Secretary of State"" have been inserted in para. 1 as per
the opinion of Mr. John Bruce Norton (Advocate-General in 1868). (b) In the same para 1, instead of the bare words ""right to land claimed to be
108.38 acres of dry, 218 53 acres of wet and 13 acres of garden besides Pormaboke and situated in the Jarjangi proprietary Shrotriem portion of
the village of Lakkamdiddi,"" the words ""right to the Government Revenue on land &c."" have been substituted. In other respects, the title deed
follows the old form including the insertion of the manuscript words ""besides Porambokes"" after the mention of the area of dry, wet and garden
lands.
I think that there can be no reasonable doubt that the words ""besides Poramboke"" were intended to have the same meaning and implication in
the renewed title-deed of 1898 as they had in the old title-deed of 1867. What there was the meaning- of the words in the old form of title-deeds
relating to major mams (See. Exhibits K-1, K-7, K-10, K-11, 21-(a) and 21-(&) which all contain the words besides Poramboke""), read
specially in the light of the fact that these manuscript words were cot inserted in minor inam title-deeds like Exhibits K-8, K-9, K-12, and K-13?
One very significant entry appears in Exhibit K-2 (the Lukulam Register prepared in 1862). The Inam Commissioner first mentions the Gudikat
Extent of the lands in Lukulam for purposes of valuation. He then, deducts the extent of Poramboke in favor of the inamdar. [Poramboke
consisting of (a) the bed of the river Vamsdhara, (b) path, (c) pasture land, (d) burial grounds, (e) channels, (f) sandy deserts, (g) sandy heaps in
the bed of the river, (h) tanks and (i) village sites]. Then, he makes this important note: '' The Agraharamdars have nothing to do with the bed of the
river, that is, he denies their title to the items which I have marked (a) and (f) out of the Poramboke items but it does not say that the
Agraharamdars have no right to the other Poramboke areas items (b) to (f), (h) and (i) which include the ""channels"" (e) and ""tanks"" (h).
14 My predecessor, Mr. Ayling, (now Mr. Justice Ayling), in his judgment in the suit has taken it as clear that the Government did not reserve the
channels and tanks"" in the village (there are 6 tanks supplied by the channels) "" at the time of the inam Settlement."" In the Urlam Case which seems
to me to be a weaker case for the plaintiff than the present case see the judgment reported in Kundukuri v. Secretary of State (1910) 1 M.W.N.
695 : 8 M.L.T. 389 : 20 M.L.J. 823 : 8 Ind. Cas. 67 : 34 M.K 295. His Lordship, Mr. Justice Miller, (with whom Munro, J., concurred) remarks
as follows: ""We have not been shown anything in the evidence to indicate that any channels or works in the haveli lands were so reserved"" by
Government at the time of the Permanent Settlement of 1803 and 1804 with the pro-prietors purchasers ""nor does it seem probable that the
Government would at that time have deemed it necessary to reserve a channel."" * * On the whole, the evidence Seems to me to support the
contention that the beds of the channels were not reserved by the Government at the Permanent Settlement but passed with the lands to the
respective purchasers in so far as they lay within the limits of the land purchased by each to the same extent and in the same way as the tank beds,
village sides and other Poramboke lands."" In the present case, it cannot be contended that the Government have any rights in the house sites in the
village and it seems to me that they have none in the channel beds and tanks also. If the Jarjangi proprietor purchased the whole Estate of Jarjangi
including the channel beds and tank bails, etc., the Government lost all right in the channel beds even if the inamdars were not the omners under
their original grant of 1767 which was confirmed in 1867. The Government must have intended by the insertion of the words Besides Poramboke
in the major inam title deeds issued between 1863 and 1867 to acknowledge the title of the inamdars to the Poramboke lands along with the
cultivated dry, wet and garden lands. The change of the form of the title-deed, by which change, the title only to the Government Revenue payable
on the cultivated lands (instead of the title to the lands themselves) was acknowledged, retained the words ""Besides Poramboke"" (just after
mentioning the area of the cultivated lands). This made the whole sentence in the new form to read rather awkwardly (if not ungramatically) but the
intention of the Government to acknowledge the inamdar''s title (in the case where the original inam grant was of a whole village) to the Poramboke
lands in the village seems to me reasonably clear. The insertion of the words cannot mean that only the Government right to revenue from
Poramboke land is given to the inamdar, because Poramboke lands (like chancel beds, etc.,) are not assessed to revenue. Why the words
''besides Poramboke"" were not inserted in the printed forms of the title- deeds themselves and why they are added in every title-deed in
manuscript both in the old and new forms is not indicated by the evidence. I am invited by the learned Government Vakil (Mr. W. L.
Venkataramiah) to interpret the words besides Poramboke"" as meaning excluding Poramboke or'' the Government reserving to itself the
Poramboke"". I can only remark that such an interpretation is, to say the least,. entirely far-fetched. In Webster''s Dictionary, two of the meanings
of besides"" are given as ""over and above"" and '' in addition to"" and that is the meaning in ordinary parlance and not the meaning of exclusion or
reservation. The Inam Commissioner, in preparing the register for whole inam villages, excluded service inams, minor personal inarns and
Poramboke from the area of a whole inam village in order to ascertain the income derivable from the village. Then, when title-deeds were issued to
the whole village inamdars, the service inarns area and the minor personal inams area were alone deducted from the grant (because they belonged
to other than the whole village inamdars, and those lands had to be settled with those minor inamdairs separately) but the Poramboka area was
recognised in the major inamdar''s title-deeds as belonging to them by the addition of the words ""Besides Poramboke,"" that is, that the Poramboke
area was to be included in the area, the title to which in the inamdars was acknowledged by Government.
In the result, my opinion is that by the words ""Besides Poramboke"", the Government acknowledged the title of the inamdars of the whole inam
village to the channel beds and tanks in dispute.
The Hon''ble Mr. P.S. Sivaswami Aiyar, Advocate-General, for the Appellant.
Mr. P. Narayanamurty, for the Respondent.
This appeal coming on for hearing after the return of the finding of the lower Court the Court delivered the following
The District Judge (Mr. Sadasiva Aiyar) has submitted the fresh evidence adduced both by the plaintiff and the Government and has expressed
his opinion that by the words ''besides Poramboke'' in the inam title deed Exhibit XX, given to the inamdar proprietor of the village, the
Government acknowledged the title of the inamdar to the channel beds and tanks in dispute. The claim of the Government to water cess cannot be
maintained unless the water irrigating the village flows directly or indirectly from any river, stream, channel, tank or work belonging to or
constructed by Government. According to the former District Judge''s finding, the Garebula Gadda, which irrigates the lands in the village takes its
rise in the Parlakimedi zemindari and does not pass through any Government lands before it irrigates the plaint village, and the Government has not
exercised any control over the Gadda. But it was contended, at the former hearing of the appeal, that although there is no evidence that the channel
or stream and the tanks irrigating the village belong to Government, it must be presumed that the ownership thereof is vested in it by virtue of
Section 2, of Act III of 1906 (Madras Land Encroachments Act) which enacts (we quote only the necessary portion of the section) that a bed of
the sea and all harbours and creeks below high water mark and of rivers, streams, nalas, lakes and tanks and all canals and water courses and all
standing and flowing water and all lands wherever situated, save in so far as the same are the property of any zemindar, poligar, mittadar, jaghirdar,
shrotriemdar, or inamdar or any person claiming through or holding under any of them, are and are hereby declared to be the property of
Government, except as may be otherwise provided by any law for the time being in force, subject always to all rights of way and other public rights
and to the natural and easement rights of other land-owners and to all customary rights legally subsisting."" It is contended for the plaintiff, the
inamdar, that the section does not really alter the law as previously understood and the channels passing through the whole inam village cannot be
presumed to be the property of the Government. We consider it desirable to call for a finding on the question whether, by the grant of the inam to
the inamdar, the title to the channel irrigating the village belonged to the inamdar.
The original inam title deed which was granted by the Government in 1867 has not been produced. It is stated to have been destroyed. A fresh
title deed which was granted in 1898 has been produced and is marked as Exhibit XX. An extract from the inam register, Exhibit XVI, has also
been produced. It appears from it that the inam was originally granted in 1767 to one Kanna Pillai Ramavadhanulu as personal hereditary inam by
Sitaramraz. Sitaramraz was the brother of Viziaramraz, the then zemindar of Vizianagaram. He was a render under the Bast India Company which
had obtained a firman from the Moghal Emperor granting the management of the Sircars to the Company. The village in question was included in
the Chicacole haveli in 1802. The Government sold its haveli lands in 1803-04 to the highest bidder on Permanent Settlement and 20 proprietary
estates were formed by the sale of the Chicacole haveli. The village in question is situated in one of the zemindaries so formed named Jarjangi. The
inam village was excluded from the Permanent Settlement of the Jargengi estate. The proprietor of the estate was entitled only to get the Kattupadi
fixed on the village, the right of resumption of the inam being reserved by the Government. The Government subsequently recognised the inam
granted by Sitaramraz and settled the inam with the inamdars and granted a patta to them. The inam register, Exhibit XVI, does not show that the
Government intended to exclude any portion of the inam which had been originally granted in 1767. Exhibit XVI shows the mode in which the quit-
rent payable for the village was fixed; the Poramboke, consisting of channels, tanks, village sites, pattis, burial ground, hills as well as jungle and
pasture lands together amounting to 116 acres, was excluded from the total acreage of the village. The assessment was fixed on the cultivated dry
and wet lands. Exhibit XX, the inam patta of 1898, shows that the Government acknowledged the title of the inamdar to the whole village. It states:
I acknowledge your title to a personal inam consisting of the right to the Government revenue of land claimed to be 108 38 acres of dry, 218 53
of wet and 13 acres of garden land situated in the Jarjengi Proprietary Shrotriam portion of the village of Lakkimdiddi of Chicacole, District of
Gan-jam."" The words ""Besides Poramboke"" are inserted in the margin, the extent of this Poramboke being as appears from Exhibit XVI, 116
acres. The District Judge assumes that the original title deeds must have also acknowledged the inamdar''s title to the Shrotriam village said to
consist of a certain extent of dry and wet land besides Poramboke. This assumption is based on the form of grants issued in respect of whole
village inams as appearing from the title deeds granted by the Government for other villages produced on behalf of the plaintiff. It is unnecessary to
consider whether this assump-tion was safely made. It is contended on be-half of the Government that the object of the inam title deed was only to
recognise the inamdar''s title to the Government Revenue or Melvaram of the village and, in cases where the inam was enfranchised, to give up the
Government''s right of resumption; that as no Melvaram was levied or payable on Poram-bokes there could have been no intention to recognise
the inamdar''s title to any Poramboke by the grant of the title deed. We do not decide in this case that the mere insertion in the margin of the title-
deed of the words ""Besides Poramboke"" must necessarily betaken to be an acknowledgment by the Government of the inamdar''s title to all kinds
of Poramboke. It was held, in Papala Narayansawmi v. Fen-Kanniappa (1912) 1 M.W.N. 496 : 14 Ind. Cas. 261, by this Court that such is not
the necessary effect of the insertion of. those words. The question in that case related to the bed of a stream. The inam there was granted by the
British Government in 1802 in lieu of certain lands held as emoluments of the office of Nattuvar which had been resumed by the Government. No
boundaries were stated in the documents relating to the grants and no mention was made of the river or river-bed. The Court held that
notwithstanding the insertion of words ""Besides Poramboke"" in the margin of the title-deed, the documents in the case showed that it was not
intended to acknowledge the inamdar''s title to the bed of the stream. In Ambalavana Pandara v. Secretary of State 28 M.L 539 : 15 M.L.J. 251 it
was held that a grant of a village '' with all wells, tanks and waters within the boundaries"" did not pass to the grantee any artificial water-course then
existing which irrigated the village granted and other lands. There was no mention in the grant of the channel although the existence and importance
of the channel as separate entity were present to the mind of the grantor and although tanks and wells were separately mentioned. It was held that
the omission of channel was intentional and that from that circumstance it was clear that it could not have been the intention of Government to
recognise the inamdar''s title to the channel or its bed. The effect to be given to the insertion of the words ""Besides Poramboke"" must depend on
the evidence available in each case and the circumstances attending the grant. In this case, it is extremely unlikely that when the whole of the village
was granted in 1767 by Sitaramraz, it was not intended to convey to the grantee all the wastes and Porambokes in the village. The British
Government accepted that grant and recognised the inamdar''s title under it. The channel was not one which passed through any Government
property before it reached the village of Lakkimidi. It is apparently not a large stream connected with any system of irrigation maintained by
Government and, as found by the former District Judge, the channel was not controlled by the Government to any appreciable extent. There was
no intention on the part of Government at any time to derogate from the grant made in 1767. Both of the learned District Judges who dealt with the
case proceeded on the footing that the channel and other Poramboke in the village belonged to the inamiar. On the whole, we see no reason to
dissent from that conclusion. It has, therefore, not been proved that the water irrigating the village belongs to Government. In the result we dismiss
the appeal with costs. The memorandum of objections has not been argued and is also dismissed with costs.