Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
25th March, 1963
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO AND K.C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.
Varada Bhavanarayana Rao, Appellant
Versus
The State of A.P. and other, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 340 of 1961.
Advocates appeared
M/s. N. V. Ramadas and T. V. R. Tatachari, Advocates for Appellant; M/s. P. Rama Reddy and P. D. Menon, Advocates, for Respondent No. 1.
ESTATE - INAM VILLAGE - DEFINITION - BURDEN OF PROOF - MADRAS ESTATES LAND (REDUCTION OF RENT) ACT, 1947 (ACT XXX OF 1947), S. 3 (2) (D), EXPLANATION (1).
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Varada Bhavanarayanarao, challenged the decision of the Madras High Court, which held that the inam lands covered by title deed No. 1082, held by the appellant, constituted an "estate" under the Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act, 1947 (Act XXX of 1947). The appellant contended that the original grant was not of a whole village or a named village and that the minor grants covered by title deeds Nos. 940, 941, 179, and 180 were granted prior to the original grant.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the original grant was of a named village, Vandrada Shrotriem and Agrahar of Vandrada, but the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving that the minor inams were granted subsequent to the date of the inam grant of the named village. Therefore, the suit lands constituted an "estate" within the meaning of Section 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908.
Issues: 1. Whether the original grant was of a whole village or a named village? 2. Whether the minor inams were granted subsequent to the date of the inam grant of the named village?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the original grant was of a named village, Vandrada Shrotriem and Agrahar of Vandrada, as evidenced by the entries in the Inam Fair Register and the description of the inam in Col. 8 of the Register. 2. The Court found that there was no evidence on the record to show the dates of the grants of the minor inams. Therefore, the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving that the minor inams were granted subsequent to the date of the inam grant of the named village.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Madras High Court was upheld.
Judgment
DAS GUPTA, J. : In the district of Vishakhapatnam in the State of Madras there is a village known by the name of Vandrada. The entire area of this village is now covered by 5 inam grants, by far the major portion being comprised in the inam held by the appellant, Varada Bhavanarayanarao. In 1864 the Inam Commissioner granted fresh inam title deeds in confirmation of the existing inam grants, the total area of the village was recorded as 768.60 acres. Out of this 66.12 acres were un assessed Poramboke; 690.13 acres of dry and wet lands were included in a title deed which is numbered 1082; 9.25 acres were included in title deeds Nos. 940 and 941 granted by the Inam Commissioner covered an area of 3.04 acres. The question in controversy in the present litigation is whether the inam created by the original grant in confirmation of which title deed No. 1082 was issued by the Inam Commissioner forms an "estate" to which the Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act, 1947 (Act XXX of 1947) applies. This Act will be later referred to in this judgment as "the Reduction of Rent Act". It is necessary to mention here that Section 1 of this Act provides that it applies to all estates as defined in Section 3 (2) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908. The relevant portion of Section 3 (2) of the Madras Estates Land Act runs thus :
"(d) any inam village of which the grant has been made, confirmed or recognised by the Government, notwithstanding that subsequent to the grant, the village has been partitioned among the grantees or the successors in title of the grantee or grantees."
Explanation (1): Where a grant as an inam is expressed to be of a named village, the area which forms the subject-matter of the grant shall be deemed to be an estate notwithstanding that it did not include certain lands in the village of that name, which have already been granted on service or other tenure or been reserved for communal purposes ......"
2. The Special Officer appointed by the Government of Madras under Section 2 of the Rent Reduction Act decided that the inam lands in respect of which title deed 1082 had been issued and which now admittedly are held in inam by the appellant formed an "estate". Accordingly, the officer, acting under the Act recommended fair and equitable rates of rent for the raiyati lands in this estate. On June 27, 1950, the Government of Madras published in the Gazette a notification fixing the rates of rents payable in respect of lands in the village in accordance with these recommendations. Aggrieved by this action of the Government the appellant moved the High Court of Madras under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of mandamus directing the State to forbear from giving effect to the notification. The High Court held that the remedy of the petitioner was by way of suit and dismissed the application, on an undertaking given by the Government that it would waive its right to the notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was after this that the appellant filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam, the suit out of which this appeal has arisen.
3. In his plaint the appellant averred that for the lands comprised under title deed No. 1082, there was neither the grant of a whole village nor of a named village. It was also stated by the appellant that the lands now covered by the single title deed of 1082 originally formed the subject-matter of several separate grants. The plaintiff further averred that out of the lands of the village not included in any of the earlier grants, further grants were made subsequently which were separately confirmed and separate title deeds-Title deeds Nos. 940, 941 and Nos. 179 and 180 - were issued in respect of them. It was mainly on the basis of these averments that the plaintiff contended that his lands covered by the title deed No. 1082 were not at all an estate and prayed for a declaration to this effect. The State of Madras was the main defendant in
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
