Framing of issues and service inam resumption: full evidence on the real controversy cured the procedural defect.

A suit for ejectment was not defeated merely because no separate issue was framed on the rival character of the land, where both parties understood the real controversy and fully led evidence, so no prejudice or mis-trial arose. The land was treated on the evidence as a Karnikam service inam from 1903 to 1925, and the proprietor's resumption was upheld under the village-service statute; the materials did not establish a Dharmila inam immune from resumption. The later patta and revenue records were consistent with valid resumption and regrant, and the contrary view was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit for ejectment could be dismissed for want of a specific plea or issue on the rival character of the land. (ii) Whether the land was a Karnikam service inam liable to resumption by the zamindar or a Dharmila inam beyond such resumption.

Issue (i): Whether the suit for ejectment could be dismissed for want of a specific plea or issue on the rival character of the land.

Analysis: The pleadings and evidence showed that both sides went to trial fully aware of the real controversy, namely whether the land was a Dharmila inam or a Karnikam service inam. The absence of a more elaborate issue did not cause prejudice or a mis-trial. Since the evidence had been fully led on both versions, the case did not call for dismissal on that narrow procedural ground, nor was a remand necessary.

Conclusion: The suit could not be dismissed for want of a specific plea or issue, and the objection failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the land was a Karnikam service inam liable to resumption by the zamindar or a Dharmila inam beyond such resumption.

Analysis: The documents, read as a whole, showed that from 1903 to 1925 the land was treated as held for Karnikam service and was resumed by the zamindar under the service-inam regime. Section 17 of the Madras Proprietary Estates' Village Service Act, 1894 recognised resumption of lands granted for village service by the proprietor when so held, while the evidence did not establish that the land was a Dharmila inam immune from such action. The later jeroyti patta and subsequent records were consistent with valid resumption and regrant.

Conclusion: The land was a Karnikam service inam validly resumed and regranted, and the contrary finding of the High Court was not sustained.

Final Conclusion: The decree of the trial court and first appellate court was restored, and the appellant succeeded in ejectment with costs throughout.

Ratio Decidendi: A suit cannot be defeated merely because a precise issue was not framed where both parties understood the real controversy and adduced full evidence on it, and service lands held under a proprietor may be validly resumed and regranted under the governing village-service statute when the evidence establishes that character.

---