The expression inam village in Section 9 (7) of the Abolition Act is used in its ordinary sense of a whole village held under a beneficial tenure.

( 1 ) THE question referred to the Full Bench is what is the true construction of Section 9 (7) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Roytwari) Act (XXVI of 1948) (hereinafter called the Act ). The point has arisen with reference to Akkacheruvupadu Shrotriem of Nellore District. After the Act came into operation, the Settlement Officer started an inquiry as required by Section 9 as to whether it is an estate within the meaning of Section 2 (7) of the Act. As the original grant was not available, he determined the point on the basis of the Inam Fair Register. That document is marked as Exhibit C-l. It shows that Acres 224-3 cents of wet land and Acres 62-25 cents of poramboke lands in that village were granted to the ancestor of the third respondent. It also disclosed the existence of a minor inam which was devadayam measuring 24 cents granted for conducting festivals and performing service to the Goddess Ankamma Perantalu. From the recitals of that document, it is not possible to say the dates of either of the grants. So also the names of the grantor and grantee of that village do not appear in the Inam Fair Register. The main inam and the devadayam were confirmed by two separate title deeds, T. D. Nos. 1757 and 1758 respectively. Having regard to the entries under the various columns, the Settlement Officer held that a. named village was granted in short term and it formed an estate us defined in Section 2 (7) of the Act.

( 2 ) ON appeal, this was reversed by the Estates. Abolition Tribunal which took the view that the onus of proving that the minor inam was in existence prior to the grant in question was not discharged by the tenant.

( 3 ) THE aggrieved tenants filed an application for the issue of a writ of Certiorari or other appropriate writ for quashing the proceedings before the Tribunal. Justice Umamaheswaram who heard this application declined to issue the writ as he was disposed to agree with the conclusions of the Tribunal. The learned Judge based his decision mainly OR Rama Rao v. Linga Reddi (1956) Andh WR 89: (AIR. 1957 Andh Pra 632 ). In the result, he dismissed the application. The tenants who were dissatisfied with this judgment have brought the present appeal.

( 4 ) AS the controversy in this appeal centres round the interpretation of some of the sections of the Act, it is necessary to set them out here. The relevant statutory provisions are ; 2 (7) " Inam estate means an estate within the meaning of Section 3, Clause (2) (d), of the Estates Land Act, but does not include an inam village which became an estate by virtue of the Madras Estates Land (Third Amendment) Act, 1936. " 9 (1) "as soon as may be after the passing of the Act, the Settlement Officer may suo motu and shall on application inquire and determine whether any inam village in his jurisdiction is an inam extute or not. " 9 (7) "in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Settlement Officer and the Tribunal may presume that an inam village is an inam estate," It is clear from these provisions that the Settlement Officer either suo motu or on the application by persons defining an interest in it has to start an inquiry to determine whether an inam village is an inam estate. In the determination of that question, he may presume that it is an inam estate. At the outset, it must be noted that the presumption enacted in Section 9 (7) is a rebuttable one. It is also plain that the Section does not involve the presumption that every inam constitutes an inam village. The pre-requisite to the applicability of Section 9 (7) is the existence of an inam village. So as a necessary condition for the application of this section, it should be established that the grant was of an inam village. It is for the person who sets up such a contention to make it out. It is only (hen that the presumption can be called in aid.

( 5 ) BUT the crucial question is, what is the extent of the presumption. Does it bear only on the terms of the