T. S. PL. P. CHIDAMBARAM CHETTIAR versus T. K. B. SANTHANARAMASWAMI ODAYAR & ORS.

Citation: [1968] 2 S.C.R. 754 · Decided: 10-01-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

T. S. PL. P. CHIDAMBARAM CHETI1AR 
A 
v. 
T. K. B. SANTHANARAMASWAMI ODAYAR & ORS. 
January 10, 1968 
(J. C. SHAH, V. R.AMASWAMJ AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.] 
B 
Madras Estates Land Act I of 1908, 
.vs. 
3(2)(d), 3(10)(b) 
and 
3(16)-Lalfd.< in Orathur Padugai In Tanjore Palace Estate wheth~ /1111 
undtr dtfinition of 'estatt' ;,. s. 3(2) (d)-Tanjort PaJact Estate whether 
crtatM by grant--Orathur Padugai whether a wholt villDgt or part of a 
l'iU~Distinction bttwun 'priwut land' as dtfined in s. 3(10)(h) and 
'ryOli lend' as dtfined in·'· 3( 16). 
When the Raja of Tanjore died in 1855 without leaving male iSiue 
tbe East India Company tool< possession of all his properties including his 
private property. 
However on a memorial being presented by the seruor 
widow of the late Raja, the Go•ernment of India in 1862 "sanctioned the 
relinquishment of the whole of the landed property of the Tanjore Raja 
in favour of the heirs of the late Raja." The Tanjore Palace Estate thus 
eame into existence. In 1948 the appellant purchased certain lands situate 
in Orathur Padugai which was part of the aforesaid Tanjore Palace Estate, 
and thereafter institute-O suits for possession of these lands from variOUI 
defendants. 
The trial court dismissed the suir. on the ground th•t the 
lands were situated in an 'estate' unde.- s. 3(2)(d) of the Madras E.italel 
Lands Act I of 1908 and they were 'ryoti lands' as defined in s. 3(16) 
in which the defendants had acquired occupancy rights. The Madras High 
Coult affirmed the decree, whereupon the appellant came to thia Court. 
It .,. .. contended on behalf of the appeHant that (i) the lands did Bot 
form an 'estate' under 1. 3(2)(d) of the afore .. id Act be<:ausc the r....tora-
tion of the land to the widows of the Raja of Tanjore did not amount to 
a fresh grant but only a restoration of 
the 
.ftaJus quo aJt1t; 
(ii) that 
Grathur Padugai was not a whole vinage "'' required by the definition ol 
'estate'; (iii) the widows of the Raja enjoyed both the •wa..,.ms' and tho 
la.ado pW'chascd by the appellant were 'private lands' in•· 3(10)(b) so 
that the defendants did not have any occupancy rights therein. 
HF.LO : (i) The relinquishment by the Government of India in favour 
of the widows of the Raja in 1862 ..... a fresh grant a.< already held in 
s~ 
cases. 
In view of the authorities it could no longer be questioned 
thal the Tanjore Palace E.<tate was an •eswe• within the meaning of 
s. 3(2)(d) of the Madra.' Estates Landll Act. [759 F-760 Bl 
Jijoyiamba Bayi Saiba v. Kamakshi Bayi Saibo, 
3 M.H. C.R. 424, 
Suridaram Ayyar v. Ramachandra Ayyar, l.L.R. 40 Mad. 389, Maharaia 
nf KollUJpur v. Sondaram lytr, I.L.R. 48 Mad. 
I, Sulllfaram v. Dewi 
Sankara, A.l.R. 1918 Mad. 428 and T. R. Bhawmi Slrankar Joshi v. Soma-
.•11ndiira Moopanar, [1963) 2 S.C.R. 421, relied on. 
Chota Raia Saheb Mohitai v. Surodaram l1or, 63 I.A. 224, referred to. 
(ii) There was sufficient material on the record to shO\\· that at least 
~Ince 1830 -onwards Orathur Padugai was a whole village and therefore 
an 'estate' -.ithin the meaning of the· Act. [762 CJ 
(iii) The lands in suit were 'ryoti lands' and not 'private lands'. 
The definition in s. 3(10) read as a whole indicates clearly that the 
ordinary test for 'priv11te land' is the test of retention by the landholder 
c 
G 
H 
CHIDAMBARAM v. T. K. B. ODAYAR (Ramaswami, /.) 
755 
A 
for his OW1l personal use and cultivation by him or unde"r his personal 
supervision. 
No doubt, ·such lands may be let on short leases for the 
convenience of the liindholder without losing their .distinctive character; 
but it is not the intention dr the scheme of the· Act to treat aS private ·f.hose 
lands with reference to which the only peculiarity is the fact that the land-
lord owns ooth the wararns in the lands and has been letting them out on 
shon leases. [.765 H-766 BJ 
B 
In the present case there was no proof that the lands were ever directly 
cultivated by the landholder. The High Court had found that the same 
tenants continued to cultivate the lands without break· or change, and the 
fact that there were periodical auctions of the lease rights did "not necessa-
rily deprive the tenants of the occupancy rights which they were enjoying._ 
The. appellant had not been able to adduce sufficient evidence to rebut the 
presumption under s. 185 of the Act that the lands in the inam village are 
C 
not ;>rivate lands. [766 C-G] 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Ytrlagadda Malikariuna Prasad Nayudu 

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