THE STATE OF MADRAS AND ANOTHER versus V. SRINIVASA AYYANGAR.

Citation: [1955] 2 S.C.R. 907 · Decided: 21-10-1955 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: NATWARLAL HARILAL BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
THE STATE CF MADRAS AND ANOTHER 
v. 
V. SRINIV ASA A YYANGAR. 
[N. H. BHAGWATI, VENKATARAMA AYYAR and 
B. P. SINHA JJ.] 
907 
Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) 
Act, 
(Madras Act XXVI of 1948), s.1(3)(4), s. 3(b)-Madras Estates Land 
Act I of 1908, s. 3(2)-Notification under s. 1(4) of Madras 
Act 
XXVI of 1948-Comprising a part of village-Darmila or post-set-
tlement inam in respect of portion of village-Whether the part vests 
in the Stat!! under s. 3(b) of the Madras Act XXVI of 1948-Estate 
within the meaning of s. 1 (3) of the Madras Act XXVI of 1948 read 
with s. 3(2) of Madras Act I of 1908-Whether includes part of th& 
estate-Compensation to Darmila 
Inamdar-Darmila minor inam-
W hether protected by s. 20 of the Act XXVI of 1948. 
At the time of passing of the Madras 
Estates 
(Abolition and 
Conversion into 
Ryotwari) Act 
(Madras Act XXVI of 1948), a 
15/16th portion of village Karuppur situated within the Zamindari of 
Ramanathapuram was held by the inamdars under a pre-settlement 
grant confirmed by the British Government, the estate being perma-
nently settled in 1802. 
The remaining one-sixteenth portion 
was 
held by the holders of darmila or post-settlement inams made by the 
proprietor of the estate. 
In exercise 
of the powers conferred 
by 
s. 1 ( 4) of. the Madras Act XXVI of 1948 the State of Madras issued a 
notification dated 22nd \'..!gust 1949 bringing the Act into force as 
regard~ the Ramanatha;,,uram estate 
from 7th Seot
0 'Tlber 1949, the 
latter Zamindari including one-sixteenth part of Laruppur village. 
" )e respondent-the holder of the one-sixteenth inam-contended 
tfat ur.der s. 1 ( 3) of the Madras Act XXVI of 1948 the State of 
Madras had power to notify only what would be estates as defined 
in s. 3(2) of the Madras Estates Land Act I of 1908 and that one-
sixteenth part of the village of Karuppur included in the notification 
was 1wt an estate as dcfir.e<l in that section and the 
notification 
was therefore ultra vires. 
Held (repelling the contention) that when th<': <larmila inam does 
not relate to the entire village but only to a fraction of it, it must be 
held to retain its chara:ter as part of the estate in the hands of tl1e 
inamdar al'.d when the est:.c1te is notified under s. 1 ( 4) of the Madras 
Act XXVI of i 948 the inam will vest in the State under s. 3 ( b) of 
the Madras Act XXVI of l 948 and therefore one-sixteenth portion 
of the village of Karuppur forming a darmila inam will vest in the 
State. 
Under the provisions of the Madras Act XXVI of 
1948 the 
darmila minor inamdar is entitled to claim 
compensation for the 
ttansfer of his portion of the estate to the Government. 
3-85 S.C. lndia/59. 
1955 
October 21. 
1955 
The State of 
Madras and 
another 
v. 
V. Srinivasa 
Ayyangar 
908 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
Darmila 1ninor inam is not protected by s. 20 of the Act. 
B1"o1hmayya v. Achiraju ( [19~2] I.LR. 45 Mad. 716) and Nara-
yana~·:i'j<! v. Suryanarayudu ( f 19391 66 1.1\. 278)) referred to. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JuRrsmcnoN : 
Civil 
Appeal 
No. 219 of 1954. 
On appeal from the Judgment and Order dated 
the 4t:1 day of April 
1952 of the Madras High Court 
in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 8302 of 1950. 
V. K. T. Chari, Advocate-General of Madras (R. 
Ganapathy Iyer and P. G. Gokhale, with him) for 
the appellant. 
R. Kesava Iyengar, 
(M. S. K. Iyengar, with rum) 
for the respondent. 
1955. 
October 21. The Judgment of the 
Court 
was delivered by 
VENKATARAMA 
AYYAR J.-This 
appeal 
raises a 
question of considerable 
importance 
as 
to the 
rights 
of 
holders of darmila or post-settlement inams of 
portions of a village under the Madras Estates (Aboli-
tion and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Madras 
Act XXVI of 1948), hereinafter 
referred to 
as 
the 
Act. The subject-matter of 
this appeal is 
an one-
sixteenth share 
in the village of Karuppm situated 
within 
the 
ambit 
of the Zamindari of 
Ramanatha 
puram. The holders of this ancient Zamindari were, 
during the 18th Century, the virtual rulers of that 
part of South India, and were known as 
Sethupathis 
or the Lords of Rameswaram and the adjacent isles 
and seas. 
In 
1757 
Muthu 
Bijaya 
Ragunatha, 
the 
then Rajah of Ramanathapuram, made a grant of 
the whole of the village of Karuppur to a number of 
persons for 
various charitable purposes. 
In 
1802, 
the estate 
was 
permanently settled and 
an rstimrari 
sanad was issued
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.