Back
Madras High Court
K. VEERASWAMI,GOKULAKRISHNAN
K.Satyamurti - Appellant
Versus
State of Madras, Represented by Secy, to Govt., Revenue Dept.Madras - Respondent
Decided On : 10/22/1970
MADRAS INAM ESTATES (ABOLITION AND CONVERSION INTO RYOTWARI) ACT, 1963 - SECTION 1(4) - ENFRANCHISEMENT OF INAMS - EFFECT ON TENURE - INAMS IN PUDUKOTTAI STATE - HISTORY AND INCIDENCE - EFFECT OF ENFRANCHISEMENT - INAMS NOT CONVERTED INTO RYOTWARI - NOTIFICATION DESIGNATING INAM VILLAGES AS NEW INAM ESTATES - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners claimed to own absolutely and to be in exclusive possession of about 12 acres of freehold tenure lands in the village of Nanjur, in erstwhile Pudukottai State. They purchased the lands for consideration from their predecessor-in-title by a sale deed in July 1942. The village was granted as "Sarvamanyam" by Vijayaranga Sokkanatha Ramasamy Thondaiman, the then Ruler of Pudukottai, to several Brahmins for subsistence, and it is a whole village grant with the boundaries demarcated with "Vamana Muthirai" stones to separate it from the surrounding Jaghir and ayan villages. Following the pattern in Madras, there was in 1898 the Inam settlement by the Ex-Durbar of Pudukottai. At that time the inam lands were found to be enjoyed by 50 shares. One of the shares had been endowed for the maintenance of Viswanathaswami Visalakshmiamman temple at Nanjur and was recognised as a Devadayam minor inam under a title deed issued to that effect. The remaining shares were enfranchised. The petitioners on the one hand, and the State on the other, differ on the effect of the enfranchisement on the tenure of the lands after the settlement, the former asserting that the previous restricted inam tenure was converted by the enfranchisement into freehold tenure, and the inam character was abolished so that the lands were treated as freehold. They say, therefore, that the provisions of Madras Act 26 of 1963 could not be applied to the enfranchised villages. The State would, however, contend that although the lands were converted from their previous restricted inam tenure into a freehold inam tenure, the tenure of the village as an inam was never converted into ryotwari by the Ex-Durbar of Pudukottai and that as a matter of fact, the act of enfranchisement did not, and was not, intended to change the tenure of the lands at all.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the enfranchisement of the inams in question did not change the tenure as such. The court observed that the essential ingredients of an inam are that it is a grant or gift of the land or the revenue or both. The holding is rent or tax-free, in whole or in part, and the reversionary right of the inam is with the Government in exercise of which it could resume the grant in certain events. The enfranchisement and inam settlement proceedings were prompted by two considerations: (1) sacrifice of large amount of land revenue should be checked and compensated for by adding the value of the public claim upon the land to the existing quitrent, if any, payable thereon; and (2) in view of this, the title of the inamdar based on proof of grant, or of the requisite orders of possession should be confirmed by the process of enfranchisement of service in the case of service tenures, and by retention of the existing tenure, subject to liability to lapse and without any power of alienation, or at the option of the holder, to be converted into an absolute property by the imposition of a quit-rent representing the annual value of the reversionary right of Government in the property. Conversion by the process of enfranchisement into an absolute property by imposition of quit-rent representing the annual value of the reversionary right of the Government in the property did not mean conversion from 'inam' to some other tenure. Conversion into absolute property or freehold only meant the disannexation of the property from the service, and the abolition of the reversionary right of the Government in the property in consideration of payment of quit-rent, or additional quit-rent. The quit-rent is but a fraction of the full assessment of the land, the size of which depended on certain circumstances. The fact is that even after enfranchisement the inam held on payment of quit-rent continues to be an inam, only with this difference, that where there was no quit-rent before, it is levied as a result of the inam settlement and enfranchisement, and where there was already imposition of quit-rent, additional quit-rent is levied, depending on the value of the public claim upon the land, and that it is a freehold after enfranchisement in the sense that it is not subject to lapse or reversionary right of the Government. The inam even after enfranchisement continues to be a grant confirmed by an inam title deed with a liability to concessional levy in the form of quit-rent, which, as we said, is, in consideration of the abolition of the reversionary right of the Government.
Issues: Whether the enfranchisement of the inams in question changed the tenure as such.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the enfranchisement of the inams in question did not change the tenure as such. The court observed that the essential ingredients of an inam are that it is a grant or gift of the land or the revenue or both. The holding is rent or tax-free, in whole or in part, and the reversionary right of the inam is with the Government in exercise of which it could resume the grant in certain events. The enfranchisement and inam settlement proceedings were prompted by two considerations: (1) sacrifice of large amount of land revenue should be checked and compensated for by adding the value of the public claim upon the land to the existing quitrent, if any, payable thereon; and (2) in view of this, the title of the inamdar based on proof of grant, or of the requisite orders of possession should be confirmed by the process of enfranchisement of service in the case of service tenures, and by retention of the existing tenure, subject to liability to lapse and without any power of alienation, or at the option of the holder, to be converted into an absolute property by the imposition of a quit-rent representing the annual value of the reversionary right of Government in the property. Conversion by the process of enfranchisement into an absolute property by imposition of quit-rent representing the annual value of the reversionary right of the Government in the property did not mean conversion from 'inam' to some other tenure. Conversion into absolute property or freehold only meant the disannexation of the property from the service, and the abolition of the reversionary right of the Government in the property in consideration of payment of quit-rent, or additional quit-rent. The quit-rent is but a fraction of the full assessment of the land, the size of which depended on certain circumstances. The fact is that even after enfranchisement the inam held on payment of quit-rent continues to be an inam, only with this difference, that where there was no quit-rent before, it is levied as a result of the inam settlement and enfranchisement, and where there was already imposition of quit-rent, additional quit-rent is levied, depending on the value of the public claim upon the land, and that it is a freehold after enfranchisement in the sense that it is not subject to lapse or reversionary right of the Government. The inam even after enfranchisement continues to be a grant confirmed by an inam title deed with a liability to concessional levy in the form of quit-rent, which, as we said, is, in consideration of the abolition of the reversionary right of the Government.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed with costs.
K. VEERASWAMI, C. J. :- What is the effect of enfranchisement of what is known as the Pudukottai Inams on the tenure as such? That is the common question in these petitions to quash the notification of the State Government in G. O. Ms. No. 1612 Revenue dated 24-5-1965 designating a number of inam villages specified therein as New Inam Estate under Section 2 (9) of the Madras Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Madras Act XXVI of 1963). The notification was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 1 (4) of the Act. It appointed the 1st July 1965 as the date on which the provisions of the Act, other than the sections which had already come into force, should come into force in the Pudukottai Inam Estates specified in column (3) of the Schedule to the notification. Nanjur alias Namanarayasamadram, an Inam village is one of the items in the schedule. The petitioner in W. P. 604 of 1967, which is taken as typical of
the others, claims to own absolutely and to be in exclusive possession of about 12 acres of freehold tenure lands, as he calls them, (wet and dry) in the village of Nanjur, in erstwhile Pudukottai State. He, as he says, purchased the lands for consideration from his predecessor-in-title by a sale deed in July 1942. It appears that this village was granted as "Sarvamanyam" by Vijayaranga Sokkanatha Ramasamy Thondaiman, the then Ruler of Pudukottai, to several Brahmins for subsistence, and it is a whole village grant with the boundaries demarcated with "Vamana Muthirai" stones to separate it from the surrounding Jaghir and ayan villages. Following the pattern in Madras, there was in 1898 the Inam settlement by the Ex-Durbar of Pudukottai. At that time the inam lands were found to be enjoyed by 50 shares. One of the shares had been endowed for the maintenance of Viswanathaswami Visalakshmiamman temple at Nanjur and was recognised as a Devadayam minor inam under a title deed issued to that effect. The remaining shares were enfranchised. The petitioners on the one hand, and the State on the other, differ on the effect of the enfranchisement on the tenure of the lands after the settlement, the former asserting that the previous restricted inam tenure was converted by the enfranchisement into freehold tenure, and the inam character was abolished so that the lands were treated as freehold. They say, therefore, that the provisions of Madras Act 26 of 1963 could not be applied to the enfranchised villages. The State would, however, contend that although the lands were converted from their previous restricted inam tenure into a freehold inam tenure, the tenure of the village as an inam was never converted into ryotwari by the Ex-Durbar of Pudukottai and that as a matter of fact, the act of enfranchisement did not, and was not, intended to change the tenure of the lands at all. It is also pointed out that although one of the Standing Orders of the Ex-Durbar provided option for the inamdars of enfranchised mams for relinquishing the inam tenure and accepting instead a ryotwari tenure with taram assessment, none of the petitioners opted for the change, and they continued to pay only quit-rent. On a careful consideration of the history of the inams, their incidence, the purpose and scope of the enfranchisement, and the settlement of inams both in Madras as well as in the erstwhile Pudukottai State in the last century, and the character, incidence and of the holdings confirmed and continued after the inam settlement, we are of the view that enfranchisement of the inams in question has not changed the tenure as such.
2. " Inam is a familiar concept in the land tenure of our country. The name was given by the Mohamedan rulers, and before them, it was in this part of the country known as "Manyam''. Its essential meaning is, a gift by the superior to an inferior of lands, both the kudivaram and melwaram in it, or where the land is already owned by the doned, of the melwaram either in whole o
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
