Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Land revenue was apparently first imposed by Tippu, but, as is usual in this country, lands dedicated to religious charity, etc., were exempted from it, and Ex. B is a register of such lands. The date of grant by Tippu is 1772, and from Ex. B it appears that the grantee was one Gambheeriyan Shuppu Pattar, evidently an Bast Coast Brahmin. The defendants claim that he was the Kriasthan of the tarwad but that is a pure surmise unjustifiable unless on other evidence it is demonstrated that he could not but have been the kariasthan. We come next to Ex. D, the proceedings of the British Government Inam Commissioner dated 1866. That in effect confirms Tippu's grant of 1772, and is based on some Mahratta pymash accounts in 1807, on which no doubt Ex. B was also based. These accounts were also the basis of the refusal to enlarge the extent of land covered by the inam, as appears from the correspondence appended to Ex. D between the Collector of Malabar and the Inam Commissioner, and the area was thereby fixed at 108 acres, which is practically the extent of 1,000, paras found in Ex. B. In the first letter of the Collector dated 22nd February, 1867, appended to Ex. D we find for the first time, so far as the evidence in this case goes, the defendants' edom mentioned, and the original grantor is now stated to have belonged to the Konikkal edom, that is, the defendants' edom. Some correspondence just prior to Ex. D Ex. 266 (a) and 334 resulting in a statement, Ex. 348 indicates that the then Revenue Authorities regarded the defendants' edom as the proper source of information for the history of the inam grant, and the statement, Ex. 3i8 sent in response to a request for information claims that the first inamdar, this Gambheeriyan Suppu Pattar, the name in Ex. B, was the kariasthan of the defendants' edom. Defendants naturally appeal to this document as evidence that the first inamdar was merely the agent of their edom, but such a statement is more than an assertion of the defendant's title and is no proof of it, and is consequently of small probative value; see Pir Pacha Saheb v. Mohammad Rahimuddin Sahib 77 Ind. Cas. 777 : A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 491 : 19 L.W. 174 : 46 M.L.J. 245 : (1934) M.W.N. 217 : 34 M.L.T. 347. The Inam Commissioner in his title deed confirmed the inam not in the name of the edom, but in the name of the uralars or trustees for the time being." The inam was styled as Devadayam inam land and was confirmed as such and for the upkeep of the plaint temple.