Judgment

MATHEW, J.:- The second respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madras challenging the validity of a notification issued by the State Government under Section 3 of the Madras Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 26 of 1963), on the ground that Komarapalayam Agraharam, Tiruchengoda Taluk, Salem District, is not inam and therefore the notification can have no application to that hamlet. He also challenged the constitutional validity of the aforesaid Act During the pendency of the writ petition, the appellants, claiming to be the tenants under the inamdar got themselves impleaded as respondents 2 to 31 to the writ petition. The High Court came to the conclusion that the Act is constitutionally valid but that he hamlet in question is not an inam or part of village inam and, therefore the Act can have no application to it and allowed the writ petition. This appeal, by certificate, is from the judgment of the High Court.

2. Komarapalayam Agraharam is comprised in Jadagapady village. The question whether Komarapalayam Agraharam is inam was raised at an earlier stage by some of the tenants of the hamlet and the matter came up before the High Court and the decision of the High Court is reported in Sellappa Goundar v. Bhaskaran, (1960) 2 Mad LJ 363 at p. 367. There the history of this village as gathered from the inam papers was set put thus:

"Whether Komarapalayam village was an inam village or not would depend on the terms of the grant. The grant, however, is not in evidence. The copper plate which was produced at the time of inam settlement proceedings is not now available. What we have is only Ex. A-1 the extract from the fair inam register relating to the village. From Ex. A-1 it appears that in the year 1760, Krishna Raja Udayar, the Rajah of Mysore granted the village of Jagadapady or Nattapatti, together with 12 hamlets to certain Brahmins. Komarapalayam was one of the 12 hamlets. The grant, however, was not by way of gift of either the land or any portion of the assessment thereon. A number of Brahmins subscribed and collected a sum of 50,000/- Rajagopala Pagodas. Four of them who represented the others as well paid the amount into the treasury and obtained a grant of Jagadapady and the 12 hamlets rent free from the ruler. Presumably, the grant was the result of a consideration paid by the grantees and was not really attributable to any benefaction by the ruler. When Tippu Sultan came to power, he resumed six of the 12 hamlets, allowing the successors of the original grantees to remain in possession of the rest without any obligation to pay any rent on that portion of the village. On the assumption of sovereignty by the British, Captain Macleod confirmed the title on the successor of the grantees in regard to the lands in their possession. During the enquiry by the Inam Commission, it was found that the inam was enjoyed in 110 vrittis; however only persons holding 90 vrittis appeared and filed statements and there was no claim for about 20 vrittis. The Inam Commissioner confirmed the inam subject to an assessment of Rs. 566.11.3 in addition to quit rent of Rs. 299.12. There is no evidence to indicate as to what happened to that portion of the grant which was taken over by Tippu Sultan."

3. We think that the original grant was made in consideration of the payment of the sum by the grantees and the grant was not therefore an inam grant.

4. The circumstance that the grant was treated as an inam at the time of the inam settlement proceedings and that title deeds were issued on that basis, cannot affect the original character of the grant. An inam title deed does not operate either to enlarge or abridge the rights of the inamdars under the original grant.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that even assuming that the original grant in favour of the predecessors-in-interest of the second respondent was for consideration, when Tippu Sultan resumed the 6 hamlets comprise