Land Act. That it would be so if it was part of an inam was counsel for the appellant. He; however, contended that the manner in whioh the property reverted to the widows of the Rajah in 1862 after an act df State, did not show that the estate was freshly granted, but was restored to the widows who, enjoyed both the warams, in the same way as the mrams were enjoyed before. Much of , the ar~ments in the case, therefore, was directed to establishing that in 1862 there was a ''restoration" of the status quo ante rather than a fresh grant by the British Government. It is, therefore, necessary to recount, in brief, the facts leading up to the Governmbnt Order No. 336 of 1862. These facts have been given ' in considerable detail by the Privy Council in The Be,cretary of State in Oouncil,of India v. Kamachee Boye Bahaba (1), and they are also very well-known. The Rajah of Tanjore died in October, 1855, leaving no ma.le heir to succeed him. He left behind him a large number of widows and two daughters. After his death, Mr. F'orbes who was the Commissioner, under authorit.y of Government, seized the properties of the Rajah, and took them under his charge. He, however, reported to the Government that the private properties of the Rajah and others would be returned after , an enquiry into any claims that might be submitted. The senior widow, Kamachee Boye Sa.haba, thereupon, filed a Bill on the Enquiry Side of the Supreme Court of Madras, and obtained a decree that the seizure of the private propertiea was wrong, On appeal by the Secretary of State in Council of India, the Privy Council reversed the decree, and · ordered the dismissal of the Bill. Thereafter, . a memorial was submitted to the Queen and Mr. Norton Senior went to England to , interview the Government. As a result of his efforts, in 1862 ~he {lj 1U89)7 M.l.A. 476.
