Important Point
1. In respect of the properties of the estate referred to in the proviso to Section 18(2) and Section 18(4), of the Madras Estate (Abolition and Converssion into Ryotwari Act would continue to be covered by the the provisions of Impartible Estates Act, 1904 and the said properties would be unaffected by the enactment of the Abolition Act.
2. A vacant site on which a building can be constructed is not covered by the definition of the word building contained in SEction 18(5) of the Madra Estate (Abolition & Coversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948.

Headnote:(i) The Madra Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1946-Section 3 and 18-Imparitable Estates Act, 1904-Section 4 -Zamindari Property-Zamindar selling properties before and after abolition Act came into force-Suits by sons after. Zamindar’s deaththat sale not valid-As property was impartible-Claiming that by virtue of abolition Act they became tenants of joint family file a suit for partition and claimed their shares-Plea that though all lands which formed part of impartible estate vested in Government building covered by Section 18(u) continued to vest in erstshile owners-High Court holding entire estate including buildings vested in Government and erstwhile Zamindar could not alienate any property after estatte stood notified and plaintiffs had not right to challenge alienations-Whether correct?-No-Properties of estate referred to in proviso to section 18(2) and 18(4) continue to be covered by Impartible Estates Actt and such Properties would be unaffected by Abolitiion Act.
       Held : Proviso to sub-sections (2) and sub-section (4) of Section 18 contemplates cases where the buildings are to vest in the persons who owned the same immediately before the notified date. This is clear from the language of the said provisions. On the other hand, sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 18 specify those buildings which are to vest in the Government. If Section 3 had provided for all properties of the estate to vest in the Government then there would have been no necessity of enacting Section 18 and sub-section (1) and (2) in particular. The legislative intent, to our mind, clearly seems to be that buildings in the estate and other buildings belonging to it were treated in a manner differently than the rest of the estate. It is for this reason that specific provision regarding buildings was made in Section 18. (Para 18)
       A Zamindari estate may include and consist of various types of buildings within and outside the limit of estate. The object of the Act being to provide for acquisition of the rights of the land holder and introduction of the Ryotwari settlement in such estates, i.e., to bring the Zamindari system to an end and distribute the land as a manner indicated in the Act, the buildings of the estate were dealt with in a different manner. When in the opening part of Section 3, the words used are “save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act”, the exception to the vesting of the entire estate under Section 3 in the Government is clearly contained in proviso to Section 18(2) and in Section 18(4). The High Court, in our opinion, was not right in holding that the entire estate including the buildings vested in the Government by virtue of Section 3 of the Abolition Act and the earstwhile Zamindar could not alienate any property after the estate had been notified jand the plaintiffs had no right to challenge the alienations so made on this ground alone. (Paras 19 & 20)
       (ii) The Madras Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948-Section 18-‘Building’ referred to in section 18(4)-Meaning of-A vacate site on which building can be construted not covered by defition of word building.
       Held : Sub-section (5) of Section 18 provides that a building includes the site on which it stands and any adjacent prmises occupied as an appurtenance thereto. this sub-section seems to indicate that a piece of land on which there is no construction, answering the description of the building would not be covered by Section 18(4). By the inclusive definition of the building in Section 18(5), the site on which a building stands and any adjacent premises occupied as an appurtenance thereto has been included. A vacant site on which a building can be contructed is certailny not covered by the definition of the word “building in Section 18(5). (Para 22)

Judgement

Kirpal, J.-Punganur Estate in Chittoor District in Andhra Pradesh was an impartible estate of which Raja Veera Basava Chikkar Royal Varu was the last Zamindar. The question involved in these appeals by special leave reltates to the alienations made by the said Raja of some of the properties which formed part of the said estate.

2. It is an admitted case that the estate was governed by the provisions of Impartible Act 1904. Under Section 4 of the said Act the Zamindar had no right to alienate impartiable property beyond his life time. The estate was governed by the rule of primogeniture and an alienation under the 1904 Act could, inter alia, be done for the benefit of the family.

3. In 1908 the Madras Estate Land Act was passed defining the subsititution, rights and liabilities of land-holders of ryoti and made declarations of the existence of the occupancy rights of the ryoti. The lands were divided into two classes; (1) ryoti land and; (2) private land. It is not necessary to consider this Act in great because it is not in dispute that the Raja continued to be the Zamindar of the Punganur estate. In 1948 the Madras Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Abolition Act’) was enacted. The said Act was made applicable to the Andhra area and the erstwhile State of Madras so as to provide for the repeal of the Permanent Settlement, the acquisition of the rights of landholders in permanently settled and certain other estates in the province of Madras, and the intorduction of the ryotwari settlement in such estates.

4. The Punganur Estate was notified under the Abolition Act and taken over by the Government on 7th September, 1965. During his life time the Raja, who died in the year 1965, had alienated various properties to different persons. Some of the alienations were prior to 7th September, 1950, while the others were after the Abolition Act had become applicable to the said estate. After the Raja’s death his two sons filed two separate suits, OS No. 33 of 1969 and OS No. 86 of 1971 in the Subordinate Court, Madanapalle for partition and separate possession of their share after declaring the alienations made by the Raja in favour of the defendants as not being binding on them and for mesne profits. Their case was that Punganur estate was an impartible estate and alienations made by the last Zamindar prior to 7th September, 1950 were not for legal necessities or for the benefit of the estatte and the alienations were valid only during the Zamindar’s life time. After his death in 1965 it was claimed that the succession opened and the alienations were not binding on the plaintiffs who, it was submitted, had become tenants of the joint family by virtue of the Abolition Act 1948 and, therefore, they could file a suit for partition and claim their share.

5. The defendants in their written statement reserted the suit by contending that aftter its abolition the estate had vested the Government and the plaintiffs had ceased to have any rights therein and, therefore, the could not question the alienations affected by their father. Some of the defendants submitted that the alienations were for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate and consequently they were binding upon the plaintiffs. An objection was also raised that since under the Abolition Act the estate vested in the Government the plaintiffs could not claim the properties in the estate to be their own and file the suit for partition. The plaint contained a schedule in which various properties in respect of which petition was sought were enumerated. In respect of some of the items of property the plaintiffs and the defendants entered into a compromise while in respect of some other items the suits were decreed in the absence of any contest by the defendants who were interested in those items. In the present appeals we are concerned only with items (1), (4), (5), (8), (9), (12) and (31).

6. In respect of properties 1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document