RAJA SOMASEKHAR CHIKKA AND ANR. versus M. PADURAVATAMMA AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1999] 2 S.C.R. 810 · Decided: 22-04-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. KIRPAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAJA SOMASEKHAR CHIKKA AND ANR. 
v. 
M. PADURAVATAMMA AND ORS. ETC. 
APRIL 22, 1999 
B 
[B.N. KIRPAL AND U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.] 
Tenancy and Land Laws 
Madras Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948_:_ 
C Section 3, 18(1) (2) (3) (4) & (5)-lmpartible Estate-Vesting in 
Government-Zamindar-Alienation of property-Legal heirs claim for 
partition and allotment of shares-High Court's holding that by virtue of 
Abolition Act, entire estate to vest in Government-Claim rejected-Validity 
of-Held, the entire estate does not vest in the Government under S. 3-
D Exception to the vesting is clearly provided in. proviso to S. 18(2) and S. 
18(4)-Madras Impartible Estates Act, 1904. 
Words & Phrases: 
E 
"Buildil}g" Meaning of in the context of Sec. 18(4) of the Madras 
Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. 
Erstwhile Zamindar of Punganur Estate, an impartible Estate, alienated 
his properties to different persons. The said estate was taken over by the 
Government under the Madras Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) 
F Act, 1948. Appellants, sons of late Zamindar filed a suit for partition and 
allotment of their shares i!I the properties alienated contending that the 
alienations were valid only during the life time and not binding on them. 
Respondent resisted the suit contending.that, after the Abolition Act, the 
estate vests in the G.overnm~nt and appellants have no right therein. The 
G Trial Court held that the:alienation in .respect of certain properties were 
binding on appellants and the properties alienated by Zamindar not for legal 
necessity were not binding on the i:\ppella'nts. On appeal, High Court held 
that in view of the Abolition Act, the interest in estate totally vested in the 
Government and appellants have no right therein. Hence these appeals. 
H 
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the properties in 
810 
R.S. CHIKKAv. PADURAVATAMMA 
811 
question were joint family properties and the alienations prior to the Abolition A 
Act were invalid as being contrary to the Impartible Act, 1904; with the 
promulgation of the Abolition Act these properties would vest in the original 
owner and it would became partible; even though all the lands which formed 
part of the impartible estate would vest in the Government under S. 3 of the 
Act, the building covered by S. 18(4) continued to vest in the erstwhile B 
owners and the same would not vest in the Government. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. The High Court was not justified in holding that the entire 
estate including the buildings vested in the Government by virtue of S. 3 of C 
the Madras Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, and 
the erstwhile Zamindar could not alienate any property after the estate had 
been notified and the appellants had no right to challenge the alienations so 
made on this ground alone. (820-H] 
1.2. A Zamindari estate may include and consist of various types of D 
buildings within and outside the limit of estate. The object of the act being 
to provide for acquisition of the rights of the land holder and introduction 
of the Ryotwari Settlement in such estates, i.e., to bring the Zamindari 
system to an end and distribute the land in the manner indicated in the Act, 
the buildings of the estate were dealt with in a different manner. When in 
the opening part of S. 3, the words used are "save as otherwise expressly E 
provided/in this Act", the exception to the vesting of the entire estate under 
S. 3 in the Government is clearly contained in proviso to S. 18(2) and in S. 
18(4). [820-F-GJ 
Rajah Velugoti Kumara Krishan Yachendra v. Rajah Velugoti Sarvagna 
Kumara Krishna Yachendra Varu ~ Ors., (1970] 3 SCR 88, relied on. 
F 
1.3. It is clear from the language of the said provisions vi;.. S. 18(2) 
& (4) that proviso to sub-section (2) and sub-section (4) of S. 18 contemplates 
cases where the building are to vest in the persons who owned the same 
immediately before the notified date. On the other hand, sub-sections (1) and G 
(2) of S. 18 specify those buildings which are to vest in the Government. If 
S. 3 had provided for all the properties of the estate to vest in the Government 
then there would have been no necessity of enacting S. 18 and sub-sections 
(\) and (1) in particular. The legislative intent, clearly seems to be that 
buildings in the estate and other buildings belonging to it were treated in 
a manner differently than the

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