LexT. R. BHAVANI SHANKAR JOSHI versus SOMASUNDARA MOOPANAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 421 T. R. BHAVANI SHANKAR JOSHI v. SOMASUNDARA MOOPANAR (S. K. DAs, M. HIDAYATULLAH and J. C. SHAH, JJ.) Act of State-Proper ties of Late Ruler seized by Govern- ment-Subsequent restoration to heirs of private propertie&-lf amounl to a grant-Nature of the property-Whether "estate" Occupancy rights-Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 (Mad. 1 of 1908), as amended by Madras Act 18 of 1936, •· 55. The property in suit belonged to what was known as the Tanjore Palace Estate. The appellant became owner of the property in 1936 by virtue of a sale on foot of a mortgage decree obtained by his father in a suit of 1926. The respondent had been in posse'8ion pf the property by virtue ofa leasi; deed dated July 300 1932, and on August 13, 1936, he got a lease of the property for two years from the appellant. Under the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, as amended by the Third Amendment Act of 1936, occupancy rights Vested in a person who was in direct and actual posJes• i; sion of the Land on June 30, 1934. The respondent insti- r- tuted a suit against the appellant for the grant of a patta in occupancy right on payment of a fair rent. The appellant pleaded that the prnvisions of the Act were not applicable to the property in suit on the ground, inter alia, that as it was a part of the Tanjore Palace Estate it could not be considrred to be an estate within the meaning of the term in the Act. The history of the Tanjore Palace Estate showed that after the Rajah of Tanjore died in 1855, leav- ing no male heirs, the Government seized all hi~ properties. Subsequently, in .1962 the private properties of ihe Rajah ~ were "relinquished" and "restored" by the Governrilent to the widows of the Rajah. The appellants contention was that the manner in which the properties reverted to the widows of lhe Rajah in 1862 afrer an act of State showed that it was not a case of a fresh grant by the GO\·ernment but a restoration of the status quo ante, so that the widows enjoyed both the warams, as before. · . Held, that the act of State having made no distinc- '"--' non between the private and public properties of the Rajah the private properties were Jost by that of State leo.ving no right outstanding in the exiiting claimants. .The Govornment order was thus. a fresh grant due to the bounty April 21. II/el T. R. Bhavani ,sian.lar Joshi v. soma.sunda1a Mooft1~a, 422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963J or"tbe Government and not because of any aniecedent rights in the grantees. The words "relinquished" or ''restor~d" in the Government order did not have the legal effect ofreviving any such right b ~cau,c no ri~hts rurvivc:l the act of State. The root of title of the grantees wa• the Government order. The Ster.tar11 of State in Oouncil of India v. Kamaeloee Roys 8<1oh•ba, (1859) 7 /,[,[.A. 476,.lijoviamba Bavi Saiba v, K·•mkn•hi Ra~,; Saiba, (1868) 3 M. H. C. R 424, Srimant Oho•11 R~ja Saheb Moyitai v. 8und11ram Ayyar, (1936) L. R. 63 I.A. 224 llnd Chidambaram CAettiar v. Rama•wamy Odayar, [ 1957] 1 M. L. J. 72, relied on. Crv!L APPELLATE JuRIBDIOTION : Civil Appeal No. 54 of 1952. ApJ>"&l from the judgment and decree dated l\le.rch 19, 1953, of the Madras High Court in S. A. No. 1513 of 1948. K. N .. Rajagopala Sas!ri, M. !. Khowaja and B. K. B. Naidu, for the appellant. M. G. Setalvad, Attorney-Gemiral of India, A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, R. Gopalalcrishnan, J. B. D1idachanji, 0. G. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the respondent. l!l62. April 2!. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by llidn,y<duUahJ, HIDAYATULLAH, J.-In this appeal on a certifi~"te, the appe lle.nt was tho origine.l Defendant No. l in "suit filed by the respon~ent under s. 55 ~ of th~ l\farlra.s Estates Le.nd Act, 1908, eeeking a direction for th" grant of a pa.tta to him in regard to the suit land. The suit was decreed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kumbakonam, who fix:ed the rent at the rate of Rs. 1·8-0 per mah, the land being a.bout 64 acres or l \12 mahs. This land originally belonged to what. was -.,-., known 1111 the Tanjore Palace :Estate, and by a suit 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS (23 1 of 1919, it fell to the share of Ry. Sivaji Rajah Saheb of Tanjore (Palaoe). It oame into the possession and ownership of the appellant by virtue of a sale on foot of a mortgage decree obtained by his father in a suit of 1926. The appellant obtained possession in 196
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.