Minor inams excluded from the assets of the zamindari at the time of the permanent settlement are not "estates" within the meaning of S. 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, and therefore, the appellants were not entitled to permanent occupancy rights under the Act.

Judgment

S. K. DAS, J. : These are fifteen appeals by special leave. They have been heard together as they raise common questions of law and fact and this judgment will govern them all.

2. These appeals arise out of fifteen suits filed by certain inamdars (respondents herein) of a village called Goteru for ejecting the tenants, who are the appellants before us, from various holdings in their possession after the expiry of the period of their leases and for other reliefs, such as, arrears of rent and damages. The lands lie in village Goteru, one of the villages in the Nuzvid zamindari. Goteru, Komaravaram and Surampudi are three Mokhasa villages in the said zamindari. It was admitted that the Mokhasas were included in the assets of the zamindari at the time of the permanent settlement in 1802. The case of the inamdars respondents was that in eight of the suits the land was a Karnam service inam and in seven suits the land was a Sarvadumbala inam. These inam lands were pre-settlement inams and were enfranchised by the Government on the basis that they were excluded from the assets of the zamindari at the time of the permanent settlement and separate title deeds were subsequently issued to the inamdars. According to the inamdars these inam lands were not "estates" within the meaning of S. 3(2) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 (Madras Act I of 1908) and the inamdars were entitled to both Melvaram and Kudivaram therein, the respondents leased out these lands to the appellants for a fixed period under an express contract with the appellants, who were the lessees concerned, that they would quit and deliver possession at the end of their lease periods; the appellants, however, did not vacate the lands, but continued to be in possession: Twelve acres and 52 cents of the suit lands were Karnam service inam and the rest Sarvadumbala inam.

3. The appellants contended inter alia that the suit lands formed part of the Mokhasa of village Goteru and were included in the assets of the zamindari at the time of the permanent settlement, that the inams were part of an estate and the appellants had acquired rights of occupancy in the lands in suit under the provisions of the Madras Estates Land Act. They also raised certain other pleas with which we are not now concerned. The main defence of the appellants was that they had got permanent occupancy rights in the suit lands and, therefore, they were not liable to be ejected and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suits.

4. The learned District Munsif of Tanuku who tried the suits in the first instance dealt with them in three batches. He held in three separate judgments that the suit lands were pre-settlement minor inams, that they were not included in the assets of the zamindari at the time of the permanent settlement and that they were not "estates" within the meaning of the provisions of the Madras Estates Land Act. The learned Munsif also held that as there was a clear undertaking to vacate the lands at the expiry of the period of the leases, no notice to quit was necessary. In the result he decreed the suit. The tenants appellants herein then preferred fifteen appeals against the judgments and decrees of the learned Munsif. These appeals were heard together by the learned Subordinate Judge of Eluru. By a common judgment delivered on March 29, 1948, the learned Subordinate Judge agreed with the learned Munsif in respect of all the findings and dismissed the appeals. Then, there were second appeals to the High Court of Judicature at Madras. In these second appeals only two points were urged on behalf of the appellants. The first point was that the finding of the courts below that the suit lands were excluded from the assets of the zamindari was vitiated by reason of the burden of proof being wrongly placed on the appellants. The second point was that the inamdars having conceded in the plaints that the tenants were holding over after the expiry of their leases, the inamdars were not en