Judgement

RAMASWAMI, J. : These appeals are brought against the judgment and decree in A. S. Nos. 223 and 224 of 1951, 264 to 273 of 1952, 275 of 1952 and 277 to 279 of 1952 of the Madras High Court dated January 10. 1956 affirming the judgment and decree in O. S. Nos. 75, 77 to 81 of 1948 and 19 to 22, 24 to 26, 28 and 30 to 31 of 1950 of the Subordinate Judge, Tanjore.

2. The appellant instituted the above-mentioned suits for recovery of possession from the respective defendants of the disputed lands and for payment of damages at the rate of Rs. 50/- per annum per acre. The case of the appellant was that the disputed lands which were purchased by him by a sale deed dated November 11, 1948 (Ex. A-145) are situated in Orathur Padugai which is attached to Pannimangalam, one of the villages comprised in what is known as the "Tanjore Palace Estate", that the said lands are not situated in an estate as defined by the Madras Estates Land Act 1 of 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), and in any event the said lands are private lands of the appellant and not ryoti lands as defined in the Act and the various defendants are trespassers in unlawful occupation of the lands and had no right to continue in possession and were therefore liable to ejectment. The appellant also claimed that the defendants were liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 50/- per annum per acre in respect of the lands in their unlawful occupation. The defence in all the suits was substantially the same. It was contended by the defendants that the disputed lands are situated in an estate within the meaning of S. 3 (2) (d) of the Act, that the lands are ryoti lands in which they have permanent right of occupancy and that they are not "private lands" as alleged by the appellant and the civil court had therefore no jurisdiction to entertain the suits and the Revenue Courts alone had jurisdiction. By his two judgments dated October 31, 1950 and February 2, 1951, the Subordinate Judge, Tanjore dismissed the suits, holding that the lands were situated in an estate and were ryoti lands in which the defendants were entitled to occupancy rights. The appellant took the matter in appeal to the Madras High Court which affirmed the decision of the trial court and dismissed all the appeals.

3. The two principal questions which are presented for determination in these appeals are : (1) whether the suit-lands are located in an estate within the meaning of S. 3 (2) (d) of the Act, and (2) if the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, whether the suit-lands are private lands or ryoti lands as defined in the Act.

4. Section 3 (2) (d) of the Act, as originally enacted stales:

"3. In this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context :-

...................................................................................................................................

(2) Estate means -

...................................................................................................................................

(d) any village of which the land revenue alone has been granted in inam to a person not owning the kudivaram thereof, provided that the grant has been made, confirmed or recognised by the British Government. or any separated part of such village,".

The section was amended by the Madras Estates Land (Third Amendment ) Act 18 of 1936 to the following effect:

"(d) any inam village of which the grant has been made, confirmed or recognised by the British Government, notwithstanding that subsequent to the grant, the village teas bee partitioned among the grantees, or the successors in title of the grantee or grantees.

Explanation (1):

Where an inam village is resumed by the Government it shall cease to be an estate, but, if any village so resumed is subsequently regranted by the Government as an inam, it shall, from the date of such re-grant be regarded as an estate.

Explanation (2):

Where a portion of an inam village is resumed by the Go