Grant named village not Inam estate.

G.R. Jagadisan, J.

1. In proceedings taken suo motu under Section 9 of Madras Act XXVI of 1948 the Miscellaneous Settlement Officer, Ramanathapuram, held that the Inam Village of Vellalankulam Vettuvankulam in Tirunelveli Taluk is not an "Inam Estate" within the definition of Section 2(7) of the Act. The State of Madras filed an appeal from the decision to the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Madurai. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Settlement Officer not for the reasons given by the Officer but on different grounds. Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunals under the Act the State has preferred this appeal.

2. The only question that arises for decision is whether the village Vellalankulam Vettuvankulam is an "Inam Estate" under the Act.

3. Two conditions must be satisfied in order to bring an inam village within the definition of Section 2(7) of Madras Act XXVI of 1948 and they are, (1) the grant must have been made of a whole village or a named village and (2) the grant must have been of the melwaram alone to a person not owning the Kudivaram but not of the land itself. Section 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act before its amendment in 1936 applied only to an inam of melwaram to a person not owing kudiwaram in the land, but did not apply to land comprising both the warams, or, in other words, to the soil of the land in the village. The definition " inam estate " under Section 2(7) of the Madras Act XXVI of 1948 confined it only to pre-1936 inams with the result that where at the inception the grant was of the land itself it would not be an inam estate under the Abolition Act. In order to enable the State Government to abolish and take over the village under the Abolition Act it is essential that there must be a grant of the melwaram alone to a person not owning kudiwaram in respect of a whole village or named village. Failure to establish any of these conditions would be fatal to the claim of the Government to abolish the village. This much is clear and is indeed indisputable.

4. The Miscellaneous Settlement Officer was of the view that the grant was neither that of a whole village nor that of a named village. He pointed out that the village was not Vellalankulam Vettuvankulam as described and that Vellalankulam was really a hamlet and this hamlet was served by a tank for irrigation of the fields, in the opinion of the Officer there were three portions of the village lands which were combined and compendiously described Vellalankulam Vettuvankulam and that the village itself was not one single unit. On the question whether the grant was of melwaram alone or the land itself, the Officer reached the conclusion that it was possible to infer that the original grant must have consisted of both warams, and on these findings, the Officer declared that the village was not an inam estate.

5. The Tribunal however differed from the Settlement Officer and held that the grant was not in respect of both the warams, and that the State failed to discharge the onus upon it to show that the entire village of Vellalankulam Vettuvankulam was granted in inam. The finding of the Tribunal is that the grant was only of melwaram and would therefore be prima facie within the definition of" inam estate " but, as there was no proof that the grant was of a whole village or a named village the claim of the State failed.

6. Now the whole question has been argued before us. The learned Government Pleader contends that the view of the Tribunal that the grant was of a portion of the village or less than a village is erroneous and opposed to evidence in record. Mr. M.S. Venkatarama Ayyar, the learned Counsel for the Inamdar, while supporting the finding of the Tribunal that the grant was not of a whole village challenges the correctness of the finding that the grant comprised only the melwaram and not the land. It is therefore necessary to examine the evidence that has been made available in the case.

7. The original grant is not before the Court.