VARADA BHAVANARAYANA RAO versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [1964] 2 S.C.R. 501 · Decided: 25-03-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

2 s.c.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
501 
VARADA BHAVANARAYANA RAO 
ti. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO and 
K. c. DAS GUl'TA JJ.) 
Estate& Land-Inam grants-" Eswte&"-Whe!her lnam 
•houki relate to whale or nam•d village-Burden of proof-If on 
peraon who 
asBer!B that it i• not "E•wle"-Madra• EBtatu 
Land (Reduction of Rent) Act, 1947 (Mad. 30 of 1947), •. 1-
Madra. EBlate& Land Act, 1908 (Mad. 1 of 1908) •· 3 (2)-
lndian Evidence Act, (1 of 1872), ss. 101, 102, 103. 
The appellant held the major portion of certain village• 
covered by 5 inam grant• in the District of Vishakapatnam in 
the State of Madras. The Inam Commissioner had granted 
ftesh inam title deeds in confirmation of the original grants. 
The Special Officer appointed by the Madras Government 
under s. 2 of the Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) 
Act, 194 7, decided that the inam lands covered by the fresh 
inams were "Estates 
withins. 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates 
Land Act, 1908 anJ recommenclrd fair and equitable rates of 
rent for the raiyati lands 
in this estate. Subsequently the 
Government of Madras by a notification in the Gazette fixed 
rates of rent in accordance with this recommendation. The 
appellant moved the High Court under Art. 226 of the consti· 
tution for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State 
to forbear from giving effect to the notification. The High 
Com! held that the proper remeay of the appellant Wal by 
way of a suit and dismissed the petition. 
The appellant thereupon filed a civil suit and the Trial 
Court accepted the contention of the appellant that suit land 
did not constitute an estate as defined iu s. 3 ( 2) ( d) of the 
Madras Estates 
Land Act, 1903. On appeal to the High 
Court the decision of the Trial Court was reversed and the 
appeal was allowed. The present appeal has been filed on a 
certificate granted by the High Court. 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that there 
was no material on ~he record to show that the. original grant 
was of a whole village or of a village by name, to bring the 
ands within tho definition of "Estate" in s. 3 (2) ( d) of tho 
1968 
M•n:h 25 
1963 
Var.:cfa Blia~'Ollara.J•ri• 
Ra> 
•• 
State ef Ar1dhra 
PrM!t:f, 
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. 
Madras Estates Land Act, 1908. It was further contended 
that the burden of proving \vhcthcr the land constituted an 
estate lay on the State and the State had failed to discharge 
this burden. 
The respondent~' contention 
\Vas that the scheme 
of the Explanation (1) to s. 3 (2) (d) showed that the legisla-
ture intended the court 'O presume that 
\Vhen a grant as an 
inam was expressed to be of a named village the area cdvered 
by the grant formed an estate but that it was open to a party 
to rebut this presumption. 
Held 
that the suit land docs not form a whole inam 
village within the meaning of the main portion of s. 3 (2) (d). 
It can 
still be an estate, ho,vevcr, if it comes within th(" 
explanation. 
Varadaraja-Swamirari Temple v. Krislmapp7, I. L. R. 
(1958) Mad. 1023, approved. 
The present grant which wa< later confirmed by the title 
deed was already of a named village. 
It is not correct to !'ay that as soon a• it was found that 
the ioam grant was of a named village a rebuttable presump-
tion will arise that it formed an estate. 
Janakiramaraju v. 
Appala•wami, I. L. R. (1954) Mad. 
980 and Narayana.•wami Nayrida v. Subramaniy~m, (1915) 
I. L. R. 39 Maj, 683, disapproved. 
The 
legislature has not created :uiy presun1ption either 
way. This being the position the question of the burden of 
proof depends on ss. 101, 102 and 103 of the Evidence Act. 
Applying the principles contained in those sections the burden 
to prove that the suit land is noc an esrate is on the plaintiff 
and he having failed to discharge this burden, the appeal is 
dismiascd. 
Diatricl Board Tanjore v. Noor Mohamwul, A. I. R. 1953 
S. C. 446, distinguished. 
CrvIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appea! 
No. 340 of 1961. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated 
November :rn, 
l\Jl18, 
of 
the 
Andhra Pradesh 
-
-
2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
503 
High Court at Hyderabad in Appeal Suit No. 1228 
of 1953. 
'P. V. R. Tatachari and N. V. Ramadas, for the 
appellant. 
P. Rama Reddy and P. D. Menon, 
for 
respondent No. 1. 
1963. March 25. The judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
J96J 
Yarada Bh:.wanarayani 
Rao .. 
.ltatt! of Andhra 
Pr1desh 
DAS GUPTA J.-ln the district of Vis

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