STATE OF MADRAS versus P. GOVINDARAJULU NAIDU

Citation: [1966] 1 S.C.R. 915 · Decided: 23-09-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
l 
H 
STATE OF MADRAS 
v. 
P. GOVINDARAJULU NAIDU 
September 23, 1965 
[K. SUBBA RAO, J. R. MUDHOLKAR AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.] 
Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (26 of 
1948), s. 2(15)-Under-tenure and Zamin estate-Difference between. 
In 1796 the suit village was' granted to the person occupying the 
office of Nattuvar conferring on him the. mirasi of the village permanently, 
subject to his paying all just dues. 
At the time! of making the permanent 
settlement in the District in which the village was situate, it was decided 
by the Government to abolish the office of Nattuwar but to maintain 
the shrotiems, that is, the grants made to Nattuvar, and realise the dues 
through the instrumentality of the Zamindar. 
The policy was imple-
mented by including the shrotie1n in the Tirumazhy zamindari and by 
transferring the Government's ultimate reversionary rights to the Zamindar. 
The result was that the shrotriem tenure in the hands: of the Nattuvar 
continued after the permanent se.ttlen1cnt as it existed prior to it, except 
that the tenure under the Government became an under-tenure under 
the zamindar, as the zamindar intervene~between the Government and 
the Nattuvar. 
In 1950. the appellant State notified the slr.rotriem village as a zamin 
e.11otate under s. 3 of the Madras Estates (Abolition and conversion into 
Ryotwari) Act, 1948. The respondent \Vho was in possession and en-
joyment of the village filed a suit for a declaration that thei notification 
was illegal and void. 
The. trial court dismissed the suit, but the High 
Court on appeal, held that the notification was illegal and void, because, 
the village was not a zamin village, but a whole inam village. 
In appeal to this Court, it \Vas contended that as the village was in-
cluded in the assets o.f the zamindari at the time of permanent settlement, 
it was part of zamindari. 
HELD : As the village1 was held under a permanent under-tenure, 
it fell under the definition ins. 3(2) (e) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 
1908, and was, therefore, an estate thereunder and hence it was an under-
tenure estate under s. 2(3) of the Abolition Act. As the "under tenure" 
estate is excluded from the definition of "zamin estate", the notification by 
the Government on the basis that it is a zamin estate was void. 
[928 
A-B] 
Though a village is physic811y a part of a zamindari, if it is_ beµI 
on a permanent under-tenure. it is included in the definition of aQ- e;~te 
under s. 3(2) (e) of the Madras Estates Land Act. To cbnsa(ute, -an 
under-tenure it is not material whether the grant was a pre-seittlerhent 
or post-settlement one, but what is important is : in whom the reversionary 
interest rests. The reversionary interest may rest in the proprietor of the 
zamindari either because at the time of permanent settlement the inam was 
included in the assets of the zamindari or because he himself was the granter 
of a permanent under-tenure. The showing of shrotriem vi11agc as village 
of zarnindar is not decisive in the context of the Act. 
The distinction 
hetween zamin and under-tenure is reletvant for the purpose of compen-
sation. 
[919 B, F-G: 920 A; 925 DJ 
916 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
'-(1966] l ShR. 
Gop;setti Veeraswami v. • Sagiraju S.eetharaina Kantayya, (1926) 51 
A 
M.L.J. 394 and Narayanaswam; Bahadur v. Boda Thammayy<t, 
1930, 
M.W.N. 945, referred to. 
' 
CIVIL APPELI:ATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 446 of 
1963. 
Appeal from ~e judgment and decree dated September 9-;-
1958 of the Madras High Court in Appeal Suit No. 85 of 1956. 
II, 
A. Ranganadham Chetty and A. V. Rangam, for the appel-
lant. 
T.V.R. Tatachari, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Subba Ra~, J. 
This appeal by certificate raises the question 
whether the village of Mothirambedu is a zamindari estate und~r 
the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) 
Act, 1948 (Madras Act XXVI of 1948), hereinafter called the 
Act. 
The facts may l:ie briefly stated. 
Mothirambedu village 
is 
one of the shrotriem villag~s in the Chingleput district in the State 
of Madras. 
The respondent purchased the same from one P. 
Anathapadmanabacharlu under a sale deed dated July 10, 1946, 
for a sum of Rs. 26,000/-, and was in posses~ion and enjoyment 
thereof. 
On December 12, 1950, the Government of Madras 
issued a notification under s. 3 of the Act tak,ing over the said 
village as a zamindari estate. 
The Gov

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