ALURU KONDAYYA AND ORS. versus SINGARAJU RAMA RAO AND ORS.

Citation: [1966] 1 S.C.R. 842 · Decided: 20-09-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

ALURU KONDA YY A AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
SINGARAJU RAMA RAO AND ORS. 
Sep/ember 20, 1965 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYAT· 
B 
t:LLAH, J.C. SHAH ANDS. M. SIKRI, JJ.] 
Madras Es;ates Land Act (I of 1908), s. 3(2) (d), Explanation I, 11' 
am~ndcd by Act 18 of 1936 and Act (2 of 1945)-Estatc-Grcmt of a 
named v1Jiage-Jj can be presumed to be of a whole village. 
Jn the village of ChaJJayapalarn, there were six inams, namely, the 
Challayapalam Shro1rien1 and five minor inams but there was no infonna-
tion as to when the inams were crealed and by v-·hom. 
In t\\·o suits, one 
tiled by the shrotrietruiars, against the tenants for a declaration that the 
tenant' did not have occupancy rights in the lands in their occupation. and 
the other. by the tenants for a declaration that they had occupancy rights, 
the qucsr1on arO!Je whether the slzrotrien1 was an "cstale" vtithin the mean-
ing of s. 3(2)(d) of the Madras Es1atcs Land Act, 1908, as amended by 
Act 18 of 1936. The trial court held, on a review of the evidence, that the 
grant was of the whole village within the meaning of the section and that 
the tenan:s h,1d occup•D"Y righlS. 
On appeal, 1he High Court hdd that 
the evidence on record was inconclusive, that the onus of p'.·o,·ing that the 
grant was of an estate lay upon the tenants, and th:1t, since the tenanlo; had 
failed 10 discharge the onus, the question should be decided again,t the 
IOll&llts. 
In the appeal to this Court by the tenants, the question \Vas : if there 
was no evidence justifying an infere;icc that the grant wao; of a whole 
village, whe1her explanation I lo s. 3(2)(<l) (added by Act 2 of 1945) 
gave rise to a presump1ion in favour either of the shrotrierntl11rs or the 
tenants. 
HELD : The suit or the shrotriemdars must fail, because, the Explana-
tion ra:sc.;; a presumption, v.-here a grant is expressed to be of a named 
Tillage. that the area which formed the subjecl maller of the groat shall 
be deemed to he an estate. 
Raising of the presumption is not subject to 
any other condition. 
The le~islalure has, by the non obsrafJte clause in 
the Explanntion, affirmed that such presumplion shall be raised even if 
it appears that in the grant arc not included certain lands in the village, 
which h<lVC, hefore the grant of the named ,·iJlagc, been granted on service 
or other renure or have b~n reserved for communal purposes. llle party 
contending that the grant in question fall<; outside the definition ins. 3{2l (d). 
has to prove that case, either by showing that the mi~or inan1s not com-
prised in the grant were created, contemporaneously \v1th or subsequent to 
the grant of the village, by the grantor. [857 D-E; 861 C-E] 
By enacting the Explanation the intention of the legislature was to 
declare occupancy ri~hts of tenants in inam villaj:!CS. 
It v.rould be attri-
butinA to the 
le~islature rross i~orance of local conditions. if it was 
held that the leizislature intended to place upon the tenant the onus of 
establishing affirfnatively that the minor inams were granted hcfore the 
arant of 1he named vi!la~e and Iha! if he fails to do so his claim is liable 
to fnil 
I• i9 \vell-ni!:!h im'1C1<;sib!e to di!;char_2-! such a burden in normal 
cues. · Nor was it irltended that, when the evidence was inconclusive, the 
person who approached the Court for relief must fail, for, as in lhe preseni 
842 
c 
D 
F 
G 
II 
-
KONDAYYA v. RAMARAO (Shah, J.) 
843 
A 
cue, if the inamdar as well .. the tenant sue for relief, the application of 
the rule would require the court to adopt the anomalous course. of dis-
missing both the actions. In cases, which arose after the Amendmg Act 
of 1936, reference to the presumption in s. 23 of the Act would be wholly 
out of place the applicable presumpticm being the one prescnbed by Expla-
nation I. The presumption under s. 23, that a grant in favour of an 
inamdar wa~ of the me/varani only, applied only in cases \Vhich arose before 
the Amending Act of 1936. [857 G; 858 B; 860 B; 862 F-G] 
B 
District Board of Tanjoro v. M. K. Noor Mohammad Rowther, A.I.R. 
c 
1953 S.C. 446 and V arada Bhavanarayana Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 
[1964) 2 S.C.R. 501, explained. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISoJCT!ON: Civil Appeals Nos. 341 to 
343 of 1961. 
Appeals from the judgment andj decree dated September 2, 
1955 cf the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Appeals Suits Nos. 
342 of 1949, 789 of 1950 and 551 of 1951 respectively. 
A. V. V. Nair and P. Ram Reddy, for the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.