1. Dispute over whether a shrotriem grant of a village constitutes an estate under Section 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, determining tenants' permanent occupancy rights. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
Back
Next 
1965 Supreme(SC) 215
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO, H. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH AND S.M. SIKRI, JJ.
Aluru Kondayya and others, etc., Appellants
Versus
Singaraju Rama Rao and others, etc., Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 341 to 343 of 1961.
Advocates appeared
M/s A. V. V. Nair and P. Rama Reddy, Advocates, for Appellants; Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate, (M/s. Alladi Kuppaswamy and M. S. Narasimhan, Advocates, with him), for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (In C. A. No. 341 of 1961), Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 (In C. A. No. 342 of 1961) and Respodents Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 (In C. A. No. 343 of 1961).
Advocates:
A.V.Velayudhan Nair, A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, ALLADI KRISHNASVAMI IYER, M.S.NARASIMHAN, P.RAM REDDY
A.V.Velayudhan Nair, A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, ALLADI KRISHNASVAMI IYER, M.S.NARASIMHAN, P.RAM REDDY
A grant expressed to be of a named village is presumed to be an "estate" under the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, regardless of the existence of minor inams or communal lands. This is a rebuttable presumption of law arising once the grant's nature is proved.
Headnote:(A) Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 - Section 3(2)(d) and Explanation (1) thereto - Section 6 - Section 23 - Definition of "estate" - Grant of a named village - Presumption of law - If a grant as an inam is expressed to be of a named village, the area forming the subject-matter of the grant shall be deemed to be an estate, notwithstanding that it did not include certain lands in the village granted on service or other tenure or reserved for communal purposes - This is a rebuttable presumption of law that arises once it is proved that the grant is expressed to be of a named village (Paras 26, 30).
(B) Burden of Proof - Once it is established that a grant is expressed to be of a named village, the presumption that it constitutes an estate arises; the burden of proving that the grant falls outside the definition of an estate then shifts to the party contending so (Para 26).
(C) Section 23 - Presumption under Section 23 applies to cases determining whether an inam village was an estate before the commencement of the 1936 Amendment Act, whereas the presumption under Explanation (1) to Section 3(2)(d) applies to cases arising since the amendment (Para 31).
Facts of the case:
Tenants of agricultural lands sought a declaration of permanent occupancy rights, contending that the lands were part of an "estate" under the relevant land act. The landlords argued that the grant was not of a whole village and therefore not an estate, citing the existence of minor inams within the village. The original grant deed was not available, and the determination relied on public records and registers.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the grant was expressed to be of a named village. Therefore, the statutory presumption under the Act applies, and the grant is deemed to be an estate despite the existence of minor inams.
Issues: Whether a grant expressed to be of a named village constitutes an "estate" under Section 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, despite the exclusion of minor inams, and the nature of the presumption created by Explanation (1) to the said section.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that Explanation (1) to Section 3(2)(d) creates a presumption of law that a grant expressed to be of a named village is an estate, regardless of whether certain lands were previously granted on service tenure or reserved for communal purposes. This presumption is rebuttable but not by the mere fact of the existence of minor inams.
Result: Civil Appeal No. 341 of 1961 allowed; Civil Appeal No. 343 of 1961 decreed; Civil Appeal No. 342 of 1961 remanded.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the grant was of a whole village constituting an estate under the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, or a limited grant not conferring occupancy rights. (Para 5 , 19 )
3. Interpretation of Section 3(2)(d) and Explanation (1), holding that a grant of a named village creates a presumption of an estate despite existing minor inams. (Para 18 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 )
4. A grant expressed to be of a named village is deemed an estate under Section 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, notwithstanding exclusions of minor inams. (Para 30 , 32 )
5. Appeals allowed and decrees restored in favor of tenants; one appeal remanded for determination of remaining issues. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 )
6. What is the effect of Explanation (1) to Section 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908?
If a grant is expressed to be of a named village, it is deemed an estate even if it excludes lands previously granted on service or other tenure or reserved for communal purposes. (Para 25 , 26 , 30 , 32 )
7. Who bears the burden of proof regarding the nature of a grant as an estate under the Act?
Once it is proved that a grant is expressed to be of a named village, a presumption of law arises that it is an estate; the burden then shifts to the party contesting this. (Para 26 , 27 , 30 )
8. How does Section 23 of the Madras Estates Land Act apply compared to Explanation (1) of Section 3(2)(d)?
Section 23 applies to disputes regarding whether a village was an estate before the 1936 Amendment, whereas Explanation (1) applies to cases arising since that amendment. (Para 31 )
9. Does the existence of minor inams within a village prevent it from being classified as an estate?
No, the existence of minor inams does not exclude a grant of a whole inam village from the definition of an estate under Section 3(2)(d). (Para 23 , 30 )
Judgement
SHAH, J. : In these appeals a common question -whether a shrotriem grant of lands known as "Challayapalem shrotriem" formed an estate within the meaning of S. 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act. 1908- arises. The Court of first instance on a review of the evidence was of the opinion that the grant was of the whole Chellayapalem village within the meaning of S. 3 (2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, in force at the relevant time, and that the tenants held rights of occupancy in the lands held by them. The High Court of Madras disagreed with that view and held-that on the evidence it was not proved that the original grant was of a "whole village" or even of a "named village" within the meaning of S. 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 and the first Explanation thereto, and that the onus to prove that the grant was of a whole or of a named village being upon the tenants in occupation of the lands in dispute, the claim of the shrotrimdars must succeed. With certificates granted by the High Court, these three appeals have been preferred.
2. Suit No. 42 of 1942 was filed by certain tenants of lands in the Village Challayapalem, District Nellore, for a declaration that they hold occupancy rights in lands in their occupation and for an injunction restraining the shrotriemdars of the village from "interfering with their possession". The tenants claimed that "they and their ancestors" were in possession and enjoyment of the lands for many years and had been paying rent to the shrotriemdars, and were dealing with the lands as owners, that all transactions in the Challayapalem shrotriem were being on the footing that the village was an "estate" under the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, and that in any event the tenant held permanent rights of occupancy in the lands acquired in virtue of the provisions of the Madras Estates Land (Amendment) Act, 1936. This suit was later numbered 37 of 1947.
3. The shrotriemdars filed suit No. 2 of 1946 against fifteen named defendants for a declaration that the tenants in occupation of the lands in the village did not hold permanent occupancy rights. Later, permission under O. 1, R. 8, Code of Civil Procedure to sue the named defendants as representing all the tenants in the lands of the shrotriem grant was obtained. In this suit the shrotriemdars did not claim any relief for possession: they merely sought to reserve liberty to institute separate proceedings in that behalf and claimed that they were entitled in enforcement of notices served upon ten out of the named defendants to call upon them to deliver possession of lands occupied by them.
4. There was one more suit No. 93 of 1947, which raised a dispute as to the right of occupancy in a small area of land admeasuring 1.90 acres. The plaintiff in the suit claimed that he had acquired the right of occupancy by purchase from the original tenant of the land. The fourth defendant in the suit who was the principal contesting party claimed that he was a grantee of occupancy rights from the shrotriemdar.
5. The three suits were tried together. The tenants claimed in the principal suit No. 2 of 1946 occupancy rights in the lands held by them, on three grounds :
(1) that the tenants of agricultural lands were, by immemorial custom of the locality in the Nellore District, occupancy tenants;
(2) that the tenants had acquired by prescription or by the doctrine of lost grant the rights of permanent occupancy and
(3) that the grant was of an estate within the meaning of S. 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, and the tenants of the lands in the estate were by virtue of S. 6 of the Act permanent occupancy tenants.
The trial Court relying upon the statement in Boswell s Manual of the Nellore District, that the "tenants * * * of Chellayapalem like their brothers in other villages of this District had right to occupy the land from generation to generation on payment of rent prescribed by custom", held that the tenants plea on the first hea
