Alienations of impartible estates are not void ab initio and may be valid under certain circumstances, such as when made by the managing member of a joint Hindu family or when permitted under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Impartible Estates Act.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the Estate Abolition Tribunal, Chittoor in O. P. No. 39 of 1965 rejecting the claim of the appellants herein for payment of compensation in respect of Kothapalle inam estate and awarding the same to the respondents herein, who were the petitioner? in O. P. No. 62 of 1965 on the file of the same Tribunal and who claimed that the said village, Kothappalle formed part of Punganur estate. The claims of both the parties, who had filed separate applications for payment of compensation, were disposed of by a common order now under appeal.

( 2 ) PUNGANUR estate, admittedly an important impartible estate, was notified in the year 1950 and was taken over in the year 1951 under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryolwari) Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). At that time, a dispute was raised that Kothapalle Village along with some other villages referred to as Gumkonda group of villages was an inam estate and the said group of villages were not taken over. By an order dated 24-2-1951 the Settlement Officer held that those villages were not an inam estate within the meaning of the Act. However, by virtue of the amendment effected by the Amendment Act of 1957 in the definition of inam estate this group of villages also was deemed to have been taken over under the provisions of the said Act. Thereupon the appellants filed O. P. No. 39 of 1965 and the respondents filed O. P. No. 62 of 1965 claiming compensation.

( 3 ) IT was the case of the appellants that this village originally granted as a police service inam was sold to then Zamindar somewhere in the year 1879 by the service holders. The Zamindar thereafter granted a takid on 1-11-1921 to the appellants predecessor-in-title, and the Zamindars successor subsequently confirmed the said Takid. The said Takid is marked Ex. A-2. During the course of the proceedings before the Settlement Officer earlier in the year 1951 relating to Kothappalle village as to whether it is an inam estate or not, the then Zamindar give a statement the certified copy of which is marked Ex. A-3 in the present proceedings. In that, he has admitted the Takid Ex. A-2 having been issued in Favour of the appellant predecessor-in-title and also that these villages did not form part of the Zamindari and that it was a separate inam.

( 4 ) IN the present enquiry, the two questions that were considered by the Tribunal to determine as to who among the rival claimants was entitled to receive the compensation were, (1) whether the village Kothapalie Inam Estate was part of Punganur Zamindari and (2) what are the rights of Rammaiah Chetty in terms of the Takid issued by the Zamindar of Punganur. On the first question while the appellants contended that Kothappslle village was not part of Punganur impartible estate, the respondents claimed that it was. On the second question posed for consideration, the appellants contended that in terms of the Takid Ex. A-2 issued by the respondents predecessor-in-interest, the appellants were vested with absolute rights and were, therefore, entitled to the compensation while the respondents contended that the Takid is not proved and in any case that Takid did not amount to alienation of absolute rights by the then Zamindar in favour of the appellants predecesaor-in-title and that in any event that the Raid alienation is void inasmuch as it was alienation of part of an impartible estate. "the Tribunal held that Ex. A-3 certified copy of the previous statement purported to be that of the then Zamindar, the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents was neither proved nor admissible in evidence. It did not give a categorical finding as to whether the Takid amounts to permanent grant in favour of tht1 appellants predecessor-in-title nor did it give a finding as to whether it was a lease as contended by the respondents. Nonetheless it proceeded to hold that Punganur estate, admittedly being an imp