1. The Village of Marasandaram in Hosur Taluk was notified as an inam estate under the Madras Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (Act 26 of 1963). Thereupon the petitioner filed an application before the Settlement Officer under Section 5 of the Madras Inams Supplementary Act (Act 31 of 1963)fora declaration that Marasandram Village was a minor inam and not an inam estate within the meaning of S. 2(7) of the Madras Act 26 of 1963. The Settlement Officer held that it is an “Existing Inam” within the meaning of S. 2(4) of that Act and that therefore the notification was valid. In an appeal preferred against this judgment, the Inam Estates Abolition Tribunal, Dharmapuri, was of the view that it is an existing inam estate and, at any rate, it would come within the definition of “Part Village Inam Estate” and that therefore, the notification was valid. It is against the judgment of the Inam Estates Abolition Tribunal the present revision has been filed under S. 7 of Madras Act 31 of 1963.
2. S. 2(4) of Madras Act 26 of 1963 (hereinafter referred to the Act) defines an “Existing Inam” as meaning any inam village which became an estate by venue of the Madras Estates Land (Third Amendment) Act (Act 18 of 1936). Prior to the amendment by the Madras Act 18 of 1936, an estate was defined in S. 2(d) as meaning any village of which the land revenue had been granted in inam to a person not owning the kudiwaram thereof, provided that the grant has been made, confirmed or recognised by the British Government, or any separated part of such village. After the amendment, any inam village of which the grant has been made, confirmed or recognised by the Government, notwithstanding that subsequent to the grant the village have been partitioned among the grantees or the successors-in-title of the grantee or grantees was included in the definition and became an inam estate. It would thus be seen that prior to the amendment, in order to bring it within the definition of the inam estate, the grant must be of the land revenue alone to a person not owning the Kudiwaram thereof. Under the amended provision, even those grants which were of both the land revenue and the Kudiwaram or land revenue alone to a person already owning the Kudiwaram thereof were also included in the definition of Inam Estate. But in respect of both these cases, the grant should be of a whole village or a named village.
3. The Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (Act 26 of 1948) provided for the abolition and conversion into ryotwari among others of inam estates which came within the meaning of the same prior to the amendment in 1936. S. 2(7) of Madras Act 26 of 1948 which defined “Inam Estate” excluded from the definition an inam village which became an estate by virtue of the Madras Estates Land (Third Amendment) Act, 1936. This estate which became an estate by virtue of the amendment of Madras Estates Land (Third Amendment) Act 1936 is now defined as the “existing inam estate” in Madras Act 26 of 1963. Therefore, in order to satisfy the definition of an existing inam estate the grant should be of melwaram alone to a person already owning the Kudiwaram thereof or the grant should comprise of both the warms. The grant should also be of the whole village or a named village.
4. The evidence produced in this case consisted of the Inam Fair Register Extract relating to Marasandram Agraharam Village and two other inam extracts relating to two minor inams, one granted as Devadayam Inam and another as Bhatavrithi Inam. These two minor inam lands are comprised in the Marasandram Village. It is seen from the Inam Register Extract relating to Marasandram Agraharam Village that the village was originally granted in A.D 1623 by Poligar Chudappa Naick to Sankaranarayana Bhat as Sarva Inam Village. It is described as given for subsistence as charity and was also made hereditary. In columns 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 the total ayacut poramboke lands and the minor inams are referred to with their extent and the rate of assessment relating to five tharams of dry land and five tharams of wet land. The total assessment is given as Rs. 326-9-7 after deducting the assessment on the minor inams amounting to Rs. 71-6-10. At the time of the Inam Commission Enquiry, it appears that the original grant was produced as also two later confirmatory grants. The extract also shows the persons who are registered as holders and the relationship to the original grantee. In the remarks column we find that among the number of registered holders two of them for a long time were looking after collection and payment for jodi of the village. It is also stated that the agraharamdars were not able to give any accounts of the cultivation, but they only state that they derived nearly Rs. 220/- from the village. The Karnam had given a statement to the effect that the cultivation value on the average was Rs. 200/-. In calculating the jodi payable, we find that a sum of Rs. 9/- towards the slavery of the thotty and Rs. 12/- towards Karnam's salary are deducted from the acuity value before the jodi was fixed. The confirmation also refers to the village as a grant.
5. These facts of early show in my view, that the grant was of a named village. Though there is reference in the remarks column to the jodi, collection of revenue and payment of jodi, it could not be concluded by that the original grant was of the melwaram alone.
6. It appears that in the proceedings initiated for notifying the village under Madras Act 26 of 1963, it was held that it is not an Inam Estate as defined in S. 2(7) of that Act. This was probably on the ground that the grant could not be said to be of the revenue alone to a person not owning the Kudiwaram thereof. Even if there is any doubt as to whether the grant was of both the warams or the grant of melwaram alone to a person owning the kudiwaram thereof, I have no doubt that the grant was of a named village.
7. Though the date of the original grant in this case is available in respect of the agraharam village, the dates of grant of the two minor inams comprised in the village are not known. The grantors' names also are not available with respect of these minor inams. It is therefore contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that we cannot presume that these minor inams were granted prior to the grant of the Agraharam Village itself. According to the learned counsel, if these minor inams were granted subsequent to the grant of Marasandram village by the grantee, it could not satisfy the definition of inam estate even if the grant comprised both the warams as the confirmation was not of the original grant but the confirmation was made separately of Marasandram village and the two minor inams. In this connection, he also relied on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Somasundaram v. State of Madras . 1952-II M.L.J 202=65 L.W 702. The learned counsel is Well-founded in his contention that there is no presumption that these minor inams were granted prior to the grant of Marasandram village and there is no evidence to show that they were granted prior to the original grant. In fact, it appears from the Inam Fair Register Extract relating to the Bhatavrithi Inam that the original grantee's name of the Bhatavrithi Inam found a place in Fasli 1231. If the original grantee was alive in Fasli 1231 since the grant of the Marasandram Village was only in Fasli 1944, the Bhatavrithi Inam could have been only granted subsequent to the original grant of Marasandram village itself. It is also probable having regard to the nature of the grant of Devadayam and Bhatavrithi Inams that they should have been granted by the grantee subsequent to the original grant. Anyway, in the absence of any other evidence, I am unable to hold that the two minor inams were granted prior to the grant of Marasandram village by the Poligar of Chudappa Naik.
9. It may be seen from the definition of the Inam Estate that in order to come within the definition of existing Inam Estate, three conditions will have to be satisfied. Firstly, the grant should be of both the warams or Melwaram to a person already owning the Kudiwaram thereof, Secondly, it should be of the whole village or named village and thirdly, the grant should have been made, confirmed or recognised by the British Government. The first two considerations are satisfied in this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the third condition is not satisfied and that therefore it should not be an existing Inam Estate.
10. We have already noticed that the grants of two minor inams and the portion, of the village remaining thereafter were confirmed by the Inams Commissioner separately and three separate title deeds were issued. The question for consideration is whether when three separate confirmations were made with respect to Marasandram village, though the confirmations put together would cover the entire village, it should be said to satisfy the requirements of confirmation by the Government under S. 3(2)(d) of the Estates Land Act. There is a direct decision on this question which supports the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this confirmation would not satisfy the requirement of the definition. The decision is Somasundram v. State of Madras. There also the original grant was of the whole village and subsequent to the original grant, there have been alienations and re-grants. At the time of Inam Settlement the British Government confirmed the original grant and the subsequent grant in portions. This court held that the confirmation that is intended under S. 3(2)(d) is confirmation of the grant as a whole village and if at the time of the confirmation the whole village is not available to the grantees for confirmation and the confirmation taking the shape by issue of title deeds in respect of a portion of the village, it could not be a confirmation as required under the section. This decision was approved by the Supreme Court in State of Madras v. Thyagarajan . A.I.R 1965 S.C 118.. The Supreme Court held that though by confirmation of the part of the village the Inam Commissioner had recognized the title of the grantee derived from the original grant, it could not be said to be a confirmation of a whole village. II therefore follows that Marasandram village in this case is not an existing Inam Estate within the meaning of S. 2(4) of the Madras Act 26 of 1963.
11. The next question for consideration is whether it would be a “Part Village Inam Estate” within the meaning of S. 2(ii) of that Act. S. 2(ii) read as follows:
2(ii) “Part Village Inam Estate “means a part of a village (including a part of a village in the merged territory of Pudukottai but not including such of the inam areas in the said territory as are specified in Schedule I-A the grant of which part has been made, confirmed or recognized by the Government, notwithstanding that subsequent to the grant, such part has been partitioned among the grantees or the successors in title of the grantee or grantees.
Explanation I: (a) Where the grant of a part of a village as an inam is expressed to be a specified fraction of, or a specified number of shares in, a village, such part shall be deemed to be a part village Inam Estate, notwithstanding that such grant refers also to the extent of such grant in term of acreage or canniest, or of other local equivalent.
(b) where a grant as an inam is expressed to be y in terms of acreage or cawnies, or of other local equivalent, the area which forms the subject matter of the grant shall not be deaned to be a part village inam estate.
Explanation II:—A part of a village granted in inam shall be deemed to be a part village mam estate notwithstanding that different parts of such part village were granted, confirmed or recognised on different dates or by different title deeds or in favour of different persons”.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this definition relates to a grant when it is of a specified fraction of a village or when it is a specified number of shares in the village and it would not include a case of a grant of a portion of a village or a whole village grant. We have already held that it is a grant of a whole village, though it could not be existing inam estate as the confirmation was not of a whole village. The Tribunal considered that “part village inam estate” means a part of a village simpliciter and the Explanation I where a reference has been made to specified fraction or specified number of shares could not control the main part of the definition itself. I am unable to agree with this view of the Tribunal. Part inam village as referred to in the main section in my opinion refers to only grants where it is with reference to specified fraction of the village or specified number of shares in the village and Explanation is only intended not to exclude those inams which are expressed to be a specified fraction or a specified number of shares in a village on the ground that such grant also refers to the extent of such part in terms of acreage or cawnies or of other local equivalent. This is also clear from the fact that Explanation-1(b) excludes where the grant is of an extent of land. If the grant was of a specified fraction of a village or a specified number of shares in a village, the inam would not be covered by the definition of Inam Estate under S. 2(7) of the Madras Act of 26 of 1948 and it would not also be an existing inam under S. 2(4). It is those inams that were sought to be covered under S. 2(ii) of the Madras Act 26 of 1963. If “part inam village” is understood as literally meaning any part of a village, then, that will directly come under Explanation-1(b) to S. 2(ii). All those inams which related to a part of a village with reference to a specified extent of land, in my opinion, would be covered by the definition of minor inam in Madras 30 of 1963 and it would not be a part village inam estate under S. 2 (ii). I am therefore of the opinion that Marasandram village is not a “Part Village Inam Estate”. The result of it is the notification of the Village under Madras Act 26 of 1963 was not valid and is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. The revision petition is therefore allowed. No costs.
12. The question whether the enfranchisement changes the character of the inam or not does not arise for consideration in this case as the notification itself is not valid and therefore I am not dealing with that point in this revision petition.
13. W.P No. 1542 of 1972: This Writ Petition has been filed by the same petitioner for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction restraining the respondents from taking over possession of Inam Marasandram village. Since the revision petition is allowed and the notification under the Madras Act 26 of 1963 is set aside, no separate mandamus is necessary directing the respondents not to take possession in pursuance of the notification issued under Act 26 of 1963. With these observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
Madras Act 26 of 1963