The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the plaintiffs to apply for separate registration and subdivision under Madras Act 1 of 1876, regardless of the absence of mineral rights in the defendants' land and the rejection of previous applications by the Collector.

Ramesam, J.

1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was brought by six plaintiffs who are now the registered proprietors of Panduru Mallavaram estate against the Secretary of State for India in Council (defendant l) and defendants 2 and 3 who are owners of certain lands for an order directing the separate registration of the defendants land from the estate of Panduru Mallavaram. The villages of Panduru and Mallavaram were themselves originally part of the permanently settled estate of Uratla. In 1867 one Sagi Jagannadaraju became the proprietor of Uratla. In 1875 he granted these villages to his maternal uncle K. China Narasaraju by Ex. H-1 dated 7th April 1875. Portions of the estate passed by alienation to some of the present plaintiffs under Exs. P-F-4 dated 1917and 1925 respectively. These two villages were separatly registered in 1875 (vide Ex. A dated 11th December 1875). Ex. B is the proceedings of the Board of Revenue dated 15th September 1875 fixing the peishcush on the subdivided estate.

2. In 1852 certain lands in the village of Mallavaram, now in the possession of the contesting defendants, were alleged by them to have been given to one Pushpati Subadrayya by the then proprietrix of Uratla in exchange for some other lands. Though the exchange is not clearly proved, the Subordinate Judge found that the defendants are the owners of the lands. On 18th May 1903 the plaintiffs predecessor-intitle as proprietor of Panduru Mallavaram applied to the Collector of Vizagapatam for the separate assessment and registration of the defendants land. The Collector issued a notice under Section 2, Act 1 of 1876. The father of defendants 2 and 3 did not consent to the separate assessment and registration and the Collector accordingly rejected the application on 20th June 1904.

3. Again, in May 1924, the present plaintiffs applied to the Collector for separate registration and defendants 2 and 3 did not agree and the Collector refused to allow the separate registration by proceedings dated 13th.October 1925 (Ex. G). The plaintiffs therefore bring the present suit praying that the Court may direct the separate registration of the suit land from the Panduru Mallavaram estate. The District Munsif of Yellamanohilli decreed the suit and the Subordinate Judge on appeal confirmed that decree. Defendant 3 filed this second appeal. Defendant 2 did not appear in the Court below and it appears that he is not interested in the suit land. Three questions were raised before the Courts below and were all decided against defendant 3 and they are repeated before us.

4. The first question raised is that, the alienation of the suit lands to the defendants predecessor-in-title in 1852 by the proprietrix of Uratla was not such an absolute alienation as to entitle the present plaintiffs to get them separately registered under Madras Act 1 of 1876. Section 1 of that Act provides that the alienr or alienee of a permanently settled estate or the representative of any such alienor or alienee may apply to the Collector for its separate assessment in respect of land revenue. But it has been held in Maharaja of Vizianagaram v. Collector of Vizagapatam A.I.R. 1915 Mad. 535, by Wallie, C.J., and Kumaraswami Sastri, J., that grants of lands in permanently settled estates subject to a small rent such as jodi, kattubadi or poruppu are not liable to be proceeded against under Madras Act 1 of 1876. They followed a previous unreported decision of Miller and Monroe, JJ., in A. Section No. 141 of 1905 from the same District.

5. In the two decisions referred to, the alienated lands were subject to payment of kattubadi to the zamindar and hence it was held that the zamindars were not entitled to get them sub.divided. But in the present case the land alienated in 1852 was not subject to any kattubadi. The plaintiffs therefore alleged that the defendants are the absolute owners and that they are entitled to a subdivision of the suit land, and the defendants argue