A grant of land that does not encompass an entire village and excludes waste and banjar lands does not constitute an "estate" within the meaning of S. 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908.

Headnote:
MADRAS ESTATES LAND ACT, 1908 - S. 3(2)(d) - MADRAS ESTATES RENT REDUCTION ACT, 1947 - S. 2(d) - ESTATE - DEFINITION - GRANT OF ENTIRE VILLAGE - ENFRANCHISEMENT OF INAM - EXCLUSION OF WASTE AND BANJAR LANDS - EFFECT - WHETHER LANDS CONSTITUTE AN ESTATE.
Fact of the Case:

The dispute arose from a grant of land made in Hizri year 1143 by the Raja of Parlakimidi to one Nagulakonda Shivaramdas. The grant was divided into eight vrittis over time. The Zamindari was under the management of the Court of Wards in 1860, and a block survey was conducted. The Inam Commissioner enfranchised only the cultivated area, excluding jungle and cultivated waste. The Zamindar claimed the waste and banjar lands as his exclusive and reserved areas. The plaintiff, an Inamdar, filed a suit challenging the application of the Madras Estates Rent Reduction Act to the lands, claiming that they did not constitute an estate within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the grant was not of an entire village and that the representative suit filed by the plaintiff was not defective. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the original grant was not of an entire village and that the waste and banjar lands were excluded from the enfranchisement.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit was liable to be dismissed due to the absence of identity between the person who served the notice under S. 80 CPC and the person who sued? 2. Whether the lands in dispute constitute an "estate" within the meaning of S. 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the suit was not liable to be dismissed on the ground of absence of identity between the person who served the notice under S. 80 CPC and the person who sued, as the suit was filed by the plaintiff for himself and on behalf of all the Inamdars, with the permission of the Court under O. 1 R. 8, CPC. 2. The court held that the lands in dispute did not constitute an "estate" within the meaning of S. 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, as the original grant was not of an entire village and the waste and banjar lands were excluded from the enfranchisement.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, declaring that the agraharam of Thungathampara alias Mallinadhapuram covered by T. D. No. 279 is not an estate within the meaning of S. 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, and that the Notification No. 2970 of the Government defendant published at page 1399 of Fort St. George Gazette under Madras Estates Rent Reduction Act XXX of 1947 and subsequent proceedings thereunder are therefore void, illegal and ultra vires.

Judgment

SHAH, J. :

Two questions fall to be determined in this appeal:

1. whether the suit instituted by the respondent G. V. Suryanarayana Garu against the State of Madras was liable to be dismissed because of absence of identity between the persons who served the notice under S. 80 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the person who sued; and

2. whether the lands in dispute covered by title deed No. 279 in Mallinadhapuram constitute an "estate" within the meaning of S. 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908.

2. By order dated January 11, 1950 the Government of Madras applied the provisions of the Madras Estates Rent Reduction Act 30 of 1947 to the lands in the village Mallinadhapuram on the footing that the grant was of the whole village, and hence an estate within the meaning of S.3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, and thereby sought to prevent the Inamdars from collecting contractual or customary rent from the tenants who held the lands under the Inamdars.

3. G. V. Suryanarayana Garu and Prabha Yegneswara Sastri who collectively held 2-3/4 out of the 8 virttis constituting the inam thereupon served a notice under S. 80 Code of Civil Procedure upon the Government of the State of Madras. The notice recited that the cause of action for the proposed suit arose on the issue of the notification dated January 11, 1950 published in the Fort St. George Gazette on May 16, 1950 and on subsequent dates when the Government of Madras through its officers attempted to interfere with the collection of rent due from tenants, and called upon the Government of Madras to withdraw the notification and to refrain from collecting at reduced rates rent from the tenants and cultivators in Mallinadhapuram or otherwise interfering with the rights of ownership of the inamdars in Mallinadhapuram, and informed the Government that in default of compliance, with the notice, a suit to establish the right claimed would be filed against the State of Madras. The notice set out the names, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and Prabha Yegneswara Sastri. The Government of Madras failed to withdraw the notification, and G.V. Suryanarayana Garu alone instituted, for himself and on behalf of all Inamdars of Mallinadhapuran, Suit No. 45 of 1953 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam against the State of Madras for a declaration that "the agraharam of Thungathampara alias Mallinadhapuram covered by T. D. No. 279 is not an estate within the meaning of S. 3(2)(d) of Madras Estates Land Act, and the Notification No. 2970 of the Government defendant published at page 1399 of Fort St. George Gazette under Madras Estates Rent Reduction Act XXX of 1947 and subsequent proceedings thereunder are therefore void, illegal and ultra vires."

4. The State of Madras contended that the grant in favour of the predecessors of the Inamdars was of the entire village and of a named village which had been enfranchised as such under title deed No. 279 and on that account the village constituted an estate as defined in S. 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act and also as defined in Madras Act XXX of 1947, and the plaintiffs claim was not maintainable. It was also contended that the notice served by the plaintiff under S. 80, Code of Civil Procedure was "not valid and proper in law".

5. The Trial Court held that the original grant in inam was not of the entire village, and was not so confirmed or recognised by the Government of the province of Madras and therefore within the meaning of S. 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, it was not an "estate", and Madras Rent Reduction Act, 1947 had no application thereto, but the suit was still liable to be dismissed because the notice served by the plaintiff and Prabha Yegneswara Sastri was "invalid and defective" inasmuch as the suit was filed by the plaintiff alone.

6. In appeal the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Guntur (which since the constitution of the State of Andhra was the proper Court to entertain the a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document