- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Burugu Visvanadham Brothers, Guntur v. Yerru Subbayya
Factual and Procedural Background
The plaintiffs, as appellants, filed a suit to eject the defendant from one acre of land covered by Document No. 46 of Sripuram Agraharam. The plaintiffs claimed that the land had been leased to the defendant under a kaboliat dated 13th March 1939, and the defendant had been in possession and enjoyment of the land. They also filed a small cause suit for recovery of rent for faslis 1345 to 1348. The suit (O.S No. 143 of 1939) was filed in the District Munsif's Court, Tenali, seeking recovery of possession.
The defendant contended that he had occupancy rights over the land and that the land formed part of an estate, arguing that the suit was not cognizable by a Civil Court.
The first Court held that the land was not part of an estate, maintained the suit's cognizability in a Civil Court, and decreed the suit against the defendant, holding he had no occupancy rights.
On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge of Tenali held that the land formed part of an estate, as it was part of a minor inam which formed part of the agraharam originally granted to the agraharamdars, and returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court.
The present appeal focuses on the question of whether the land in dispute formed part of an estate.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the one acre of land, subject of the suit, formed part of an estate as defined under the Estates Land Act.
- Whether the suit was maintainable in a Civil Court or required to be presented before a different jurisdiction based on the land’s status as estate or non-estate property.
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiffs' Arguments
- The land was leased to the defendant under a kaboliat dated 13th March 1939.
- The defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the land under such lease.
- The suit for ejectment and recovery of rent was maintainable in a Civil Court as the land was not part of an estate.
Defendant's Arguments
- The defendant claimed occupancy rights over the land.
- The land formed part of an estate, being part of a minor inam within the agraharam originally granted to the agraharamdars.
- The suit was not cognizable by a Civil Court due to the estate status of the land.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the nature of the land and the relevant legal definition of "estate" under Section 3(2)(d) of the Estates Land Act. It was acknowledged that the one acre in dispute was part of a minor inam and that title deed No. 1004 related only to this portion, not the entire village or agraharam.
The court noted that the original large grant of land as shrotriam inam was subdivided, with subsequent grants of minor inams confirmed separately by the British Government. The critical question was whether the British Government’s confirmation or recognition was of the entire inam village or only a portion thereof.
Since title deed No. 1004 related only to a portion (minor inam) and not the entire village, the court held that this portion could not be considered part of an estate under the Estates Land Act. Therefore, the learned Subordinate Judge erred in holding that the land formed part of an estate.
Consequently, the decree of the lower appellate court was set aside, and the decree of the first court was restored with costs.
Holding and Implications
The court's final decision was to set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court and restore the decree of the first Court with costs in all three Courts.
This decision directly affects the parties by affirming that the land in question is not part of an estate and that the suit is maintainable in a Civil Court. No new precedent was established beyond the application of the Estates Land Act's definition of estate to the facts of this case.
The plaintiffs are the appellants and the appeal arose out of a suit, filed by them for ejecting the defendant from one acre of land covered by D. No. 46 of Sripuram Agraharam. The plaintiffs' case was that the land had been leased to the defendant under a kaboliat dated 13th March, 1939 and that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. They also filed a small cause suit for recovery of the rent for faslis 1345 to 1348 and also filed the suit out of which this appeal arises (O.S No. 143 of 1939) on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Tenali, for recovery of possession of the land.
The defendant pleaded that he had occupancy right in the land and that the land formed part of the estate and that the suit was not cognizable by a Civil Court.
The first Court found that the land was not part of an estate, that the suit was maintainable in a Civil Court and decreed the suit holding that the defendant had no occupancy rights.
On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge of Tenali held that the land formed part of an estate, as it was part of a minor inam which formed part of the agraharam that was originally granted to the agraharamdars found it was an estate and returned the plaint for being presented to the proper Court.
The only point therefore for consideration is whether the land which is the subject-matter of this litigation formed part of an estate.
It was admitted before the learned Subordinate Judge that title deed No. 1004 related to the suit inam of 1 acre: and it was also admitted that the suit land was a minor inam. It is not disputed and is also clear from Exs. I and II that a large extent of land was granted as inam to Vedachala Rangacharlu as Bhatavrutti Shrotriam inam for which Rs. 320 was payable. It was out of the land granted as the shrotriam inam that there was a subsequent grant by the agraharamdars of the land in respect of which title deed No. 1004 has been issued. That this land, therefore, forms part of the original grant is undisputed but what is stated is that after the original grant there was a grant by the grantee of some portion of it which was treated as minor inam and at the time of the Inam Settlement the inam of the agraharam apart from minor inams was confirmed separately, that these minor inams which were grants by the agraharamdars were separately treated and confirmed as inams and that separate title deeds have been issued. This is clear from Exs. I and II. The next question then for consideration is whether this 1 acre out of land which formed the minor inam and in respect of which separate title deed was granted, could be said to be portion of an estate. The only provision of law under which the lessee could claim that this is part of an estate is S. 3(2)(d) of the Estates Land Act. Under that section ‘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. The answer to the question as to whether the confirmation or recognition by the British Government was in respect of the entire inam village or of only a portion is the basis for the decision as to whether the land was an estate or not. In this case Exs. I and II show that the grants were confirmed separately and independently of each other. Admittedly the land in dispute forms part of the land to which title deed No. 1004 relates and that title deed does not relate to the entire village but only to a portion of it. So merely because it formed part of the original grant of an entire village or agraharam it cannot be said that at the time when it was recognised this was part of the inam in favour of the agraharam which was recognised or confirmed by the British Government. The learned Subordinate Judge was not, therefore, justified in finding that it formed part of an estate.
The decree of the lower appellate Court is accordingly set aside and that of the first Court restored with costs in all the three Courts.
Leave refused.
N.R.R
Alert