Meaning of expression inam.

This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the decision of the Estates Abolition Tribunal. Mathurai in R.A.No.369 of 1950. The point for decision is whether the village of Ekkattu Thangal, is an inam estate within the meaning of section 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act liable to be notified under the provisions of the Madras Act XXVI of 1948. The property which is the subject-matter of this dispute is a parcel of land of the extent of about 179 acres and 35 cents. That was originally granted by the Nawab of Arcot to one Kasim Ali Baig subject to the condition that it should not be alienated. In 1781 the descendant of the grantee became indebted to one Shamier Sultan and in discharge of the debt, sold the property to him in 1787 and put him in possession. Shamier Sultan then applied to the Government for recognition of his title and on that, as appears from G.O.No.2778 of 1913 marked as Ex.Q in Ex.R-6, the Government resumed the mam and granted a lease in his favour for a period of 99 years on 30th September, 1796. The lease deed contained a prohibition against alienation and there were also other covenants for breach of which the Government were entitled to forfeit the ease and re-enter on the lands. There was also a provision for renewal of the lease for a further period of 99 years. No rent was payable under the lease, but subsequently a quit rent of Rs.21 per annum was fixed. Notwithstanding the covenant against alienation, the heirs of the grantees effected various transfers of the lease and in 1895 when the period mentioned in the lease expired it had become vested in one Mr. Ram. There was an application in 1912 by Raju for renewal of the lease in his favour. That was granted and on 7th September, 1914, a formal document of lease was executed by the Government in his favour. That deed provided for the payment of rent and there were also covenants relating to the use of the property demised. There was also a clause empowering the Government to cancel the lease for non-payment of rent or breach of any of the covenants and to re-enter on the land. There was no covenant against alienation. On 13th February, 1935, the present petitioner obtained a usufructuary mortgage of the properties from the descendants of the grantee and in execution of a decree against them purchased the property and thus succeeded to then interests under the deed of 7th September, 1914. After the enactment of the Madras Act XXVI of 1948 proceedings were stated under section 9 for determining whether the village of Ekkattu Thangal was an inam estate as defined in section 3(2)(d) of the Estates Land Act. The Settlement Officer held that what was granted under the deed dated 7th September 1914, was only a lease-held interest and that it was not an estate which fell within the purview of the Act. There was an appeal by the ryots to the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Mathurai, which held by a majority that the grant under the deed dated 7th September, 1914, was of an estate and that it was liable to be notified under Act XXVI of 1948. It is the correctness of this conclusion that is challenged in this petition. The principal contesting respondents are the ryots.

The term ‘inam’ means in the ordinary and accepted sense a grant of a free-hold interest. The properties may be transferred free from any obligation: or they may be burdened with payment of nominal amounts or performance of some service and they may be liable to be resumed in certain events, but subject to these incidents, the ownership in the properties must pass to the grantee. Where the deed does not divest the transferor of his ownership in the properties, there can be no inam, however extensive the interest which might be conveyed to the transferee A lease of property therefore cannot be said to be a grant of an inam. It merely transfers the right to possession to the lessee for the period of the lease The ownership of th