Back
1957 Supreme(AP) 41
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Chittamuru Venkareddi - Appellant
Versus
Chevuru Subbarami Reddi - Respondent
Decided On : 02-15-57
The grant of occupancy rights under the Madras Estates Land Act is limited to grants of whole villages, and the tenants must prove their rights of occupancy by establishing continuous and uninterrupted possession from generation to generation.
Headnote:
MADRAS ESTATES LAND ACT - SECTION 3 (2) (D) - OCCUPANCY RIGHTS - GRANT OF WHOLE VILLAGE - KHANDRIGA - MEANING - TENANTS' RIGHTS - BURDEN OF PROOF - INAMDARS' OWNERSHIP OF BOTH VARAMS - EVIDENCE - ANDHRA TENANCY ACT (XVIII OF 1956), SECTION 10 (2) - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, tenants in Miduthurivari Khandriga, claimed rights of occupancy under the Madras Estates Land Act. The inamdars, claiming absolute title and enjoyment of the suit lands, filed a suit for a declaration of their rights and for possession of the lands. The tenants filed a counter-suit for a declaration of their occupancy rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the grant was not of a whole village, as required under section 3 (2) (d) of the Act, and therefore the tenants were not entitled to occupancy rights under the Act. The court also found that the inamdars had proved their ownership of both the melwaram and kudiwaram rights, and that the tenants had failed to establish any rights of occupancy. The court further held that the tenants were not entitled to the protection of the Andhra Tenancy Act (XVIII of 1956), as the tenancy was not subsisting on the date of the promulgation of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the grant was of a whole village, as required under section 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, to entitle the tenants to occupancy rights? 2. Whether the inamdars had proved their ownership of both the melwaram and kudiwaram rights? 3. Whether the tenants had established any rights of occupancy? 4. Whether the tenants were entitled to the protection of the Andhra Tenancy Act (XVIII of 1956)?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted section 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act and held that the grant must be of a whole village, not just a part of a village, to attract the provisions of the Act. The court found that the grant in question was not of a whole village, as it was comprised of several parcels of land in different parent villages. 2. The court examined the evidence, including lease deeds, sale deeds, and other documents, and found that the inamdars had proved their ownership of both the melwaram and kudiwaram rights. The court noted that the inamdars had been dealing with the lands as their own, selling, leasing, and mortgaging them, and that the tenants had not exercised any proprietary rights over the lands. 3. The court found that the tenants had failed to establish any rights of occupancy. The court noted that the tenants had been let into possession of the lands only in 1939, and that they had not adduced any evidence to prove how they obtained or acquired any rights of occupancy. 4. The court interpreted section 10 (2) of the Andhra Tenancy Act and held that both conditions laid down in the provision must be satisfied for the tenant to obtain the benefit thereunder. The court found that the tenancy in question was not subsisting on the date of the promulgation of the Act, and therefore the tenants were not entitled to the protection of the Act.
Final Decision: The appeals filed by the tenants were dismissed, and the inamdars' suit for a declaration of their rights and for possession of the lands was decreed.
( 1 ) THE question that arises for consideration in both the appeals is whether the appellants are entitled to rights of occupancy in the suit lands situated in Miduthurivari Khandriga. O. S. No. 142 of 1950 on the file of the subordinate Judge of Nellore was instituted by the inamdars for a declaration of their absolute title and enjoyment of A schedule lands and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the enjoyment and possession of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and for recovery or possession of the B schedule lands together with subsequent profits till delivery of possession and for other incidental reliefs. O. S. No. 151 of 1950 was filed by the 1st defendant in O. S. No. 142 of 1950 as against the inamdars for a declaration that he was entitled to right of occupancy. Both the suits were tried together by the Subordinate Judge of Nellore and he held that Miduthurivari Khandriga was not an estate within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act as amended, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and that the inamdars have proved beyond doubt that they were entitled to both the melwaram and kudiwaram rights, that the appellants have not established that they were entitled to permanent rights of occupancy in the suit lands and consequently decreed O. S. No. 142 of 1950 and dismissed the other suit. The tenants have consequently prefered the above appeals.
( 2 ) THE first question that arises for consideration in the appeals is whether the tenants have proved that the grant was of a whole village so as to attract the terms of section 3 (2) (d) of the Act as amended. It appears from the Inam Fair Register marked as Exhibit A-35 that Miduthurivari Khandriga formed part of a government village called Patur in the Nellore District and was granted in inam long ago. According to columns 11 and 13, the names of the original grantor and the grantee arc not known. Column 12 shows that the Collector confirmed the Khandriga to the person mentioned in column 16 in 1824. Column 21 proves beyond doubt that the grant was of a Khandriga and that it was approved and confirmed by the inam Commissioner G. N. Taylor and Title Deed No. 2012 was issued in respect thereof. As pointed out by Rajamannar, C. J. , in Janakiram v. Gopalam. (1951) 2 M. L. J. 272 : 64 L. W. 732"it is well-established that any inam village in section 3 (2) (d) of the Estates Land Act means a whole village granted in Inam and not anything less than a village, however big a part it may be of that village ". The word " Khandriga " is of great significance, and it is derived from the sanskrit word " Khandam " which means a piece " or " a part ". In the decision reported in The Secretary of State for India in Council v. Mallayya, (1932) 63 M. L. J. 649, the Judicial Committee accepted the meaning of the expression " Khandriga " given to it in maclean s Manual of the Administration in the Madras Presidency, Volume III, as a block of land granted as inam, less than a village, but much larger than an ordinary inam ". The Diglot Register marked as Exhibit A-20 and the village plan Exhibit A-2i attached thereto clearly prove that Miduthurivari Khandriga is not situated as one plot but is comprised of several parcels of land in the parent villages of Patur, admittedly, a Government village. We have therefore no doubt whatsoever that the grant was not of a whole village so as to fall within the terms of section 3 (2) (d) of the Act. The tenant s are therefore not entitled to claim rights of occupancy under the Act. In this connection, we might mention that the Subordinate Judge has noted in paragraph 18 of his judgment that the learned counsel for the 1st defendant did not press his argument that the suit lands formed part of an estate within the meaning of section 3 (2) (d) of the Act. Even before this Court, no serious argument was addressed on this aspect.
( 3 ) THE next question that has to be considered is whether the inamdars have pr
