Effect and operation of Amendment Act of 1926 (Section 9).

This appeal is preferred by the State of Madras (represented by the Collector of Ramanathapuram at Madurai) who was the defendant in the Court below. The facts are simple. Kovilangundu, a hamlet of Koothalur village, was notified and taken over by Government under Act (XXVI of 1948), (The Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act) in September, 1949. The plaintiff in the lower Court was a perpetual cowledar of this village, by virtue of a perpetual cowle or lease obtained by his paternal grand-father from Rani Kathama Nachiar of Sivaganga on 14th May, 1874, on an annual cash rent of Rs. 164-4-0 besides cesses. But the ancestors of the plaintiff reclaimed the waste lands of this hamlet and brought them under cultivation, and he and his successors were granted Patta No. 122 by the Zamindar. The contentions of the plaintiff in suit were these: (1) the action of the Government in applying the provisions of Act (XXVI of 1948) to Kovilangundu is illegal and ultra vires, since this is not a ‘village’ under the Madras Estates Land Act, (2) the plaintiff is a ryot and the persons cultivating the lands are his under-tenants. Hence the Government ought not to apply the provisions of the Rent Reduction Act (XXX of 1947) to those cultivators, or to the portions cultivated by them, (3) the collection of rents or theerwa by the Government from faslis 1360 to 1365 is, hence, only as a trustee for the plaintiff, or can only be construed as such. The Government are liable to render an account to the plaintiff for the collections so made, (4) the rights of the plaintiff, in any event, are protected under section 20 of Madras Act (XXVI of 1948).

The learned Subordinate Judge decreed the suit, and the Government appeal.

Certain grounds may be dealt with immediately, and quite briefly, since it is very clear that the learned Subordinate Judge misdirected himself upon the question of law relating to the first ground.

The notification by the Government of Koothalur as an under-tenure estate, under Act (XXVI of 1948) applied to the village of Kovilangundu, which formed part of the village of Koothalur. The notification hence applied to any part within the geographical limits of the notified village, such as this hamlet: See Srinivasa Iyengar v. State of Madras1. It is sufficient here to observe that under section 1, sub-section (3) of Madras Act (XXVI of 1948), the Act is applicable to all estates as defined in section 3, clause (2), of the Madras Estates Land Act, with an exception concerning inam villages, which is not now relevant. Under section 3 (b) of the Act, the entire estate stands transferred to the Government and vests in them, by virtue of the notification, and under section 3 (c) of the Act:

“all rights and interests created in or over the estate before the notified date by the principal or any other landholder, shall as against the Government cease and determine.”

Consequently, the notification does vest this hamlet of Kovilangundu, which is part of the village of Koothalur, in the Government, by virtue of the provisions of Act (XXVI of 1948), particularly of section 1 (3) read with section 3 (2) of the Madras Estates Land Act. This proposition is indisputable, and it has not been seriously challenged before me. In paragraph 7 of his judgment, the learned Subordinate Judge appears to think that the notification under Act (XXVI of 1948) will not apply to this hamlet, and herein he is clearly in error. The decision in Srinivasa Ayyangar v. State of Madras1 , which the learned Subordinate Judge refers to, really held, inter alia that when the darmila inam relates to a fraction of a village, it retains its character as a part of the estate in the hands of the inamdar, and that when the estate is notified under section 1 (4) of Act (XXVI of 1948), the inam will vest in the State under section 3 (b) of the Act. Consequently, there is no difficulty in concluding that the notification did apply to this hamlet. The plaintif