ccxlvii 



In neither case, therefore, was there a presumption in favor of perma- 

 nent occupancy right according to the common law of the country. 

 This has been laid down in subsequent decisions of the Madras High 

 Court. In the case reported in Indian Law Reports, V Madras, page 

 345, the High Court observe : " It has never been the law in any part 

 of India, of which we. have experience, that a mere farmer of revenue 

 or proprietary right acquires a right of occupancy." Both in this 

 case aud in the case reported in Indian Law Reports, VII Madras, 

 page 374, the High Court further hold that iirimd facie porakudis 

 are tenants from year to year, and that a claim on the part of pora- 

 kudis to hold land permanently should be proved to have originated 

 either in grant or prescription. The case in which the permanent 

 occupancy right of ryots was called in question was Fakir Maham- 

 med versus Tirumala Chariar (Indian Law Reports, I Madras, page 

 205) decided by a Full Bench composed of Sir Walter Morgan, Chief 

 Justice and Messrs. Holloway and Innes, Judges, Mr. Innes dis- 

 senting. The decision was that an ordinary puttadar under Govern- 

 ment is merely a tenant from year to yeai', and that the rules of the 

 Board of Revenue asserting the contrary did not constitute rights 

 enforceable at law. Mr. Innes pointed out the true state of the case, 

 viz., that the ryot does not dei'ive his title from the puttah, but from 

 occupation of the land and registry of his name in the registers of 

 landed property kept under Regulation 26 of 1802 ; that puttah is not 

 a lease but merely a memorandum showing the revenue payable for 

 each year on the holding with reference to changes in the extent of 

 land newly taken up or relinquished, and remissions of revenue 

 granted on account of loss of crop, &c. ; and that by the common law 

 of the country, a ryot holding land under this tenure is entitled to 

 hold it as long as he pays the regulated assessment, or is evicted in 

 due course of law for default. In a subsequent case reported in 

 Indian Law Reports, IV Madras, page 174, decided by Messrs. Muthu- 

 sami Aiyar and Tarrant, it was ruled that it was incumbent on the 

 Mittadar to show that the kudivaram right as well as the melvaram 

 right vested in him, so as to entitle him to eject the ryots in the 

 mittah on notice, as tenants from year to year, and that there was 

 nothing to show that the Mittadar was the proprietor in the sense 

 that the kudivaram right belonged to him. Again in Subraya Mudeli 

 versus Sub-Collector of Chingleput (Indian Law Reports, IV Madras, 

 page 303), Sir Chai-les Turner observed that a puttah issued by 

 Grovernment will, unless it is otherwise stipulated, be construed to 

 endure so long as the ryot pays the revenue he has engaged to pay. 

 Mr. Innes laid down that the right of Government is only a right to a 

 charge on the land, and a right to forfeit, by due course of law, the 

 title of the person who does not pay the charge. In the Secretary of 

 State versus Nunja (Indian Law Reports, V Madras, page 163) decided 

 by Sir Charles Turner and Mr. Muthusami Aiyar, they stated " we 

 see strong reason to doubt whether the view of the majority of the 

 Court in that case (Fakir Mahammed versus Timmala Chariar) was 

 right and when an occasion arises, we should propose that the ruling be 

 reconsidered by the Full Bench." It is difficult to say whether the 

 principle involved in the dictum of Sir Charles Turner that a puttah 

 issued by Government, unless otherwise stipulated, will be construed 

 to endure so long as the ryot pays the revenue he has engaged to pay 



