J.C.SHAH, J.

(1) 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 Mallinadhapuram constitute an `estate` within the meaning of s. 3(2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908.

(2) BY order dated 11/01/1950 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 Guru and Prabha Yegneswara Sastri who collectively hold 2 3/3 out of the 8 vrittis 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 11/01/1950 published in the Fort St. George Gazette on 16/05/1950 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 other-wise 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 rights 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 Mallinadhapuram, Suit No. 45 of 1953 in the court of the Sub-ordinate 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 Section 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 `riot 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 recognized 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 the 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