Grant title to tank-bed lands upheld where sanad and inam deed did not exclude them; res judicata and limitation failed.

An original sanad that expressly conveyed the village, read with a confirming inam title deed that did not exclude the tank-bed lands, supported the conclusion that those lands passed under the grant to the agraharamdars. The inam register excluded certain specified items, but not the tank-beds, and long, continuous possession with acts of ownership further reinforced the title claim. A prior decree did not create res judicata because it had not actually decided ownership of the tank-bed lands. Limitation also did not defeat the claim, as the refund action was filed within six months of levy and a mere repudiation of title did not require an immediate declaratory suit.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the tank-bed lands passed under the original grant and inam title deed and belonged to the agraharamdars. (ii) Whether the suit was barred by res judicata or limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the tank-bed lands passed under the original grant and inam title deed and belonged to the agraharamdars.

Analysis: The original sanad expressly conveyed the village inclusive of the tank-bed lands, and the subsequent inam title deed confirmed the grant without excluding the tanks or tank-beds. The inam register also showed that specified items were excluded, but the tank-beds were not among them. The prior decree did not decide ownership of the tank-beds, and the lands were not shown to be communal porombokes. Long and continuous possession and acts of ownership by the plaintiffs also supported the title claimed under the grant.

Conclusion: The tank-bed lands passed under the grant and the plaintiffs established title.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit was barred by res judicata or limitation.

Analysis: The earlier suit only excluded communal porombokes and did not adjudicate the ownership of the tank-bed lands, so res judicata did not apply. As to limitation, the claim for refund was brought within six months of the levy, and the statute made the cause of action arise on the date of levy. The declaratory relief was also not time-barred because a mere repudiation of title without disturbance of possession did not compel an immediate declaratory suit.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred by res judicata or limitation.

Final Conclusion: The appellants succeeded in establishing title to the tank-bed lands, and the decree against them was set aside in part, with the appeal allowed to the extent of items 1 and 2 and the connected appeal also allowed accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a grant expressly includes specific lands and the confirming inam deed does not exclude them, the original grant remains the best evidence of title, and long possession may reinforce that title; a prior decree does not operate as res judicata unless the precise issue was actually decided.

---