The Chief Justice.-These five second appeals arise out of five suits which were tried together and disposed of by a common judgment by the learned Deputy Collector of Eluru division. They were brought by persons who were in possession of lands in the village of Idulakunta Agraharam, in Eluru taluk, West Godavari district, against the appellants and others under section 55 of the Madras Estates Land Act praying that the defendants may be directed to execute pattas in their favour in accordance with the draft patta filed along with the plaint. The defendants resisted the suits mainly on the ground that the revenue Court had no jurisdiction as the lands did not form part of an estate within the meaning of that Act. Their plea was overruled and the Deputy Collector decreed the suits. The defendants preferred appeals to the District Judge of West Godavari who confirmed the decision of the Deputy Collector that the lands were situated in an estate. These second appeals by the defendants are against the decision of the District Judge.

The main question for decision in these appeals is whether the lands in suit formed part of an estate as defined in the Madras Estates Land Act. The material’ statutory provisions in the Act relevant to this question are the following:

“Section 3(a)(d): ‘Estate’ means any inam village of which the grant has been made, confirmed or recognised by the British 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): (inserted by Madras Estates Land (Amendment) Act,. 1945-Madras Act II of 1945):

“Where a grant as an inam is expressed to be of a named village, the area which forms the subject-matter of the grant shall be deemed 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”.

“Section 3(19): ‘Village’ means any local area, situated in or constituting an estate which is designated as a village in the revenue accounts and for which the revenue accounts are separately maintained by one or more karnams or which is now recognised by the Provincial Government or may hereafter be declared by the Provincial Government for the purposes of this Act to be a village and includes any hamlet or hamlets which may be attached thereto”.

It is well-established that any inam village in section 3(2)(d) 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 question, therefore, is whether the grant in favour of the appellants’ predecessors-in-title which comprised the lands in suits was a grant of a whole village in inam. The learned District Judge was not prepared to hold that the original grant in favour of the defendants’ predecessors was a grant of what was a whole village at the time of the grant, but he held that the grant fell within the definition in section 3(2)(d) because subsequently and at the time of the institution of the suits the area granted as inam was designated as a separate village in the revenue accounts. He relied upon the definition of ‘village’ in section 3(19) and held, following the unreported decision of a learned Judge of this Court, Shahabuddin, J., in C.R.P.Nos.1007 to 1014 of 1942 that the expression “inam village” in section 3(2)(d) must be read along with the definition of “village” in section 3(19) of the Act.

The decision of Shahabuddin, J., has never been followed in this Court to our knowledge. On the other hand, the correctness of that decision has been doubted more than once and the decision of a Division Bench of this Court runs contrary to it. The reasoning of Shababuddin, J., is best expressed by the following extract from his judgment:

“The word ‘village’ in that clause (3)(2)(d) has naturally to be taken in the same sense which it bears in sub-section

Click Here to Read the rest of this document