LexGONDUMOGULA TATAYYA versus PENUMATCHA ANANDA VJJAYA VENKATAHAMA TIMMA ,JAGAPATHIRAJU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1962
"''"uarJ 20.
324 SOPREME COURT REPoRTS [1962) SUPP.
GONDu.'.IJOGULA TATAYYA
v.
J>ENUMATCHA A2\'ANDA VJJAYA
VENKATAHAMA THfMA ,JAGAPATHH~AJL'
(AND COX~ECTJ<:D APPEALS)
(S. K. DAS, M. HlllAYATULLAI! and J.C. SHAH, JJ.)
fnan1. lands-Lcrts1-s-Right aj occupancy-Jfinor ina11u~ --
lr!ie1h1r Fslates --Tc.t--Jfadra" Est<11':• Land Act, 1908 (Jlad.
1 of JYll8), ""amended, s. 3(2)(d) and Explanation (1).
'fhc respondents v-·erc holders of inams in a village called
Gotcru, one of the Mokhasa yjlJ;Jgrs which ,,·ere included iu
the assets of the Zamindari at the time of the permanent
sctt!rment in 1802. The inan1s theinselves \\·ere pre-settlement
inams and were not included in the assets of the ZamincJari.
·rhc respondents had leased out scrr1c of the lands cou1prised
in their inams to the appellant for a fixed period, and in the
suits instituted against the latter .:iftcr the expiry of the period
of the leases for ejecting rhem f1om the holdings in their
possessions, they pleaded, inter alia, that they had got occu-
pancy rights in the suit lands inasmuch as the inams \Vere part
of an estate and that, therefore, they \Vere not liable to he
ej('cted.
They contended that by reason of the amendments
made ins. 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, in
I 93G and I 9-t5, these minor inams being within the village of
Gotcru v-·erc estates und("r s. 3(2)(d), read with Explanation
( 1) of the Act.
It was not dispiHed that Goteru village was
included in the Jlukha"'' sanad of 1802 and that the Mokhasa
grant v0.-as an estate.
Jfeld, that the minor inams in the present case were not
);rants of v-·'1o!e villages and y.,·ere not, therefore, estates within
the meanins- ofs. 3(2)(dJ ol the Madras Estates Land, 1908.
1'he crucial test to find out \vhether a grant amounted
to an estate as defined under" 3(2)(d) of the Act was whether
at the time of the grant tl.c subject matter was a whole village
or o"nly a part of it.
If it \Vas only a part of a village, then
the: amending Act made no difference and such a part \Vould
not be an estate v-·ithin the rneaning of the term ; but if the
grant was of the whole village and a named one, then it \\'ottld
he an estate·
District Board, 1'anjuri; '" J/. K. "l!-loor Jfohamed llo1rtlicr,
A-1 !{. 1953 S.C. 446 and Jfontramdi Hhat'Gnaravana v. Meri:gn
Venkala<lu, 1-L.R. [1951] Mad. 116, relied on and applied.
..
-
-
3 s.C.R.
SUPREJME COURT REPORTS
325
CIVIL APPELLATE JumsDICTION: C. As. Nos.
631 to 645 of 1960.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment
and decree dated April 20, 1954, of the Madras
High Conrt in Second Appeals Nos. 1228 to 124:! of
1~9.
.
..
R. Mahalingier and Ganpat Rai, for the appel-
lants.
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and T. V. R. Tatachari,
for the respondents.
1962. February 20. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
's. K. DAS, J.-These are fifteen appeals by
Apecial leave. They have been heard together as
they arise common question of law and fact and
thiB judgment will govern them all.
These appeals arise out of fifteen suits filed
by certain inamdars
(respondents herein) of a
village called Goteru for ejecting the tenants, who
are the appellants before us, from various holdings
in their possession after the expiry of the period
of their leases and for other reliefs, such as, arrears
of rent and damages.
Tho lands lie in village
Goteru, one of the villages in tho N nzvid zamindari.
Got<'ru, Komaravaram and S11rampudi are three·
:11 olchasa villages in the rnirl zamindari. It was
arlmitted that the M olchasas were included in the
assets of the z11minrlari at the time of the perma-
nent settlement in 1802. Tho case of the inamdars
respond1mts was that in ei!lht of the suits the land
was a Krtrn<un service inam and in seven suits the
hnd w11s a Sarvad·umbala in am. These inams lands were
settlement inams and enfranchised by the Govern-
ment on the basis that they were excluder! from the
assets of the Mmindari at the time of the perma·
. neut settlement and separate title deeds were sub-
sJqu~ntly issue•I to the inamdars. According to
t4e ina~dars tqese ina~ l!~qdd >y"er'il
qot "e~t!\t\l~"
1962
Go1idumogula T4tayy•
••
Penumatclia Ananda
Vi1a a Venkala•
rama Timma.
J a1:apathiraJu
Das J,
1962
Gon·lumoyulo
Tal•.Y.Ja
v.
Pt1UJ111at,M An.,,Ja
Vij;i;·s Vtnk.Jla-
roma Timma
J •1npath~aju
/)as J.
326 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
within the meaning of s. 3 (2) of the }fadras Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.