Satyanarayana Rao, J.-

This batch of Second Appeals and Civil Revision Petitions raise two questions: (1) whether the village in which the lands are situated is an “estate” within the meaning of section 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, and (2) even if the village is an estate, whether the lands are private lands within the meaning of the definition of “private land” in section 3(10) of the Madras Estates Land Act. The trial Court held that the village is an estate, but that the lands in Nedumaram proper are private lands while the lands in the hamlets of Kallankundu, Vedavirthi, Chillanpatti and Ookulathanpatti are ryoti lands. The lower appellate Court reversed these findings. It held that the village was not an “estate” but that, even if the village was an “estate” the lands were not private lands for, according to the learned appellate Judge, the sole test to be applied to determine whether the land is an estate or private land or not is the test of direct cultivation as laid down by this Court in Jagadeesam Pillai v. Kuppammal1. There is a mass of documentary and oral evidence adduced in the case, primarily to establish whether the lands are private lands or not. The learned Appellate Judge applying the test he propounded to determine the character of the land, considered the evidence and came to the conclusion that the test laid down in Jagadeesam Pillai v. Kuppammal1, was not satisfied in these cases and that, therefore the lands were not private lands.

In this batch, the correctness of the two findings of the lower appellate Court was canvassed by one side or the other.

The first question for consideration is, whether the lands are situated in a village which is an estate within the meaning of section 3(2)(d) of the Estates Land Act. An Explanation was added to section 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates land Act by the Madras Estates Land (Amendment) Act, 1945, Madras Act (II of 1945). The main clause together with the Explanation (1) is as follows:

“Any inam village of which the grant has been made, confirmed or recognised by the Government, notwithstanding that subsequent to the grant, the village has been partitioned among the grantees or the successors in title of the grantee or grantees”.

Explanation (1): “Where a grant as an inam is expressed to be a named village, the area which forms the subject-matter of the grant shall be deed to be an estate notwithstanding that it did not include certain lands in the village of that name which have already been granted on service or other tenure or been reserved for communal purposes”.

The Supreme Court had occasion to consider the scope of these provisions in a recent case in The District Board, Tanjore v. Noor Mohamed2. It will be clear from the language of the section and also from the decision of the Supreme Court that in order to satisfy the conditions of the definition it must be established either (1) that the grant was of the entire village or, in other words, of the whole village without excluding any area from it; or (2) if the entire area is not granted, it must be at least a grant expressly of a named village, in which event the area which formed the subject-matter of the grant shall be deemed to be an estate in spite of the existence within the geographical ambit of the village of certain lands already granted, i.e., prior to the date of the grant on service or other tenure or even reserved for communal purposes. In the present case it is common ground that the grant was not of the enitre area of the Village of Nedumaram. The main definition, therefore, that the grant should be of an inam village is not satisfied in the present case. Reliance was, however, placed by the learned counsel for the appellants, on the Explanation, and his attempt was to establish that the grant was of a named village, and that, though it did not comprise the entire area, it excluded only certain lands in the village which were granted on service or other tenure or were reserved for commu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document