Judgments: Govinda Menon, J.-

Letters Patent Appeal No.61 of 1949 is against the judgment of Panchapagesa Sastri, J. in C.M.A.No.648 of 1946 and Letters Patent Appeal No.62 of 1949 is against the judgment of the same judge in C.M.A. No.649 of 1946 C.R.P.No.66 of 1946 is against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatnam in S.C.S.No.62 of 1943 on his file. The two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and the revision petition were heard together by the learned Judge who pronounced judgment in the civil miscellaneous appeals which is reported in Suryanarayana v. Venkatadu 1 . The common judgment shows that the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals were dismissed with costs, whereas the revision petition was adjourned for final orders to a later date. Before final orders were passed in the Revision Petition, the Letters Patent Appeals were filed against the judgment in those Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and all the three have been heard together. By an order, dated 31st October, 1952, the learned Chief Justice and Venkatarama Ayyar have referred the matter to a Full Bench and that is how these appeals have come up before the Full Bench as constituted. As the facts have been set forth in the judgment of Panchapagesa Sastri, J. no useful purpose will be served by once more repeating them here. The main question which has been referred to us for consideration is whether the suit lands which lie within the ambit of the village of Cherichintala in Krishna District are situated in an "estate" as defined in section 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act. If that is so, then the civil courts will have no jurisdiction to entertain the suits by the plaintiff and the orders of the lower court returning the plaints for presentation to the proper Court must therefore be correct. The decision depends upon the true and proper construction to be put upon section 3(2)(d) as well as Explanation (1) to that section. When the Madras Estates Land Act was enacted for the first time in 1908, section 3(2)(d) was as follows:

"Any village of which the land revenue alone has been granted in inam to a person not owning the kudivaram thereof, provided that the grant has been made, confirmed, or recognised by the British Government or any separated part of such village.

Owing to a variety of reasons, which it is unnecessary to mention at present, there was an amendment to this section by which clause (d) as it originally stood was removed and a fresh clause substituted by section 2(1) of the Madras Estates Land (Third Amendment) Act, 1936 (Madras Act XVIII of 1936). Clause (d) as it stands was the result of Madras Act XVIII of 1936 and it runs 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".

The old Explanations (1) and (2) were renumbered as Explanations (a) and (3) respectively and a new Explanation was inserted as Explanation (1) by section a (1) of the Madras Estates Land (Amendment) Act, 1945 (Madras Act II of 1945). This Explanation is now as follows:

"Whereas 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 served or other tenure or been reserved for communal purposes".

It will therefore be seen that the present clause (d) and Explanation (1) were the result of subsequent amendment to the original section by the Acts of 1936 and 1945.

Two points of law were raised before the learned Judges of which, in their opinion, the second one had no substance whatever. The contention was that since it is shown from the Inam Fair Register, Exhibit P-1, that from the ayacut. of the village, 44 acres, 96 cents were deducted as poromboke, it should be held that the grant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document