AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.—These appeals raise the common question as to whether the revenue village No. 5, Arayapuram Thattimal
Padugai in Papanasam Taluk in Tanjore Dt. is an ""inam"" coming within the meaning of S. 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act. It will be useful
to set out first, before taking up the question, the history of this litigation. Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai consists of two parts, namely,
Melathattimal measuring 26�21 acres and Kizhathattimal measuring 276�94 acres. These two blocks are separated from each other by about
a mile. The intervening area forms part of Government taraf villages. The entire village formed part of what is known as the Tanjore Palace estate.
The history of these villages is too well known to require any detailed recapitulation. In the year 1799 the then Raja of Tanjore ceded to the East
India Co., the entire Raj, reserving for himself the fort of Tanjore and about 190 villages; they formed part of his private property. He had in
addition the trusteeship of a number of temples and the inams granted by his predecessors for those temples remained under his management. The
last of the Raja died in 1855. The East India Co., then took over both the sets of properties. The heirs of the Raja contested the right of the
company to take over their private properties. Although they were successful in the Supreme Court, at Madras, the Privy Council, on appeal, held
that the validity of the confiscation could not be challenged in a Municipal Court�vide the Secretary of State for India in Council v. Kamachee
Boye Sahaba 7 M.I.A. 476. After the decision of the Privy Council, certain influential persons took interest in the matter; and, as a result therefore,
the British Government, as an act of grace, granted 190 villages to the Raja''s heirs. It is unnecessary now to refer to the deprivation of the trust
properties. Confining ourselves to the 190 villages that came to be compendiously referred to as the Tanjore Palace Estate, the nature of the
Government''s cession fell to be considered by a Full Bench of this Court in Sundaram Iyer v. Ramachandra Iyer 40 Mad. 389=5, L.W. 789. F.B.
it was held there that the grant made by the Government was a fresh grant and not a restoration of what had been taken away from the heirs of the
last Raja by the East India Co. Being a fresh, grant by the government, the Full Bench had no difficulty in answering the question referred to them,
namely, that the village, which formed the subject matter of that litigation, was an estate within the meaning of S. 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates
Land Act. That view relating to the nature of the grant has been accepted in all subsequent decisions. The decision in Sundaram Iyer v.
Ramachandra Iyer 40 Mad. 389=5, L.W. 789. F.B. has, however, been construed in more than one later decision as applying only to the
particular village then in question. It would follow from this that whenever a question arises, with respect to any one of the villages forming part of
the Tanjore Palace Estate, whether it was an Inam of an entire village or not, or whether the grant was of the melwaram or both the melwaram and
the kudiwaram, that question has to be decided with respect to the facts of that particular case.
On 5th April 1950 the Government of Madras notified the entire village of No. 5. Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai under the Madras Estates Land
(Reduction of Rent) Act, 1947. One of the landholders filed an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution�W.P. No. 737 of 1952�before
this Court for the quashing of the aforesaid notification of the Government. Rajagopalan J., in his judgment dated 15th February 1955, held that
Kizha Thattimal Padugai and Mela Thattimal Padugai were parts of different villages and the grant thereof could not be deemed to be of an entire
village and that, therefore, the Government had no power to notify the Village for purposes of the Rent Reduction Act. The writ issued in
consequence of this judgment formed the subject-matter of an appeal under Cl. 15, Letters Patent. The learned Judges, on appeal, considered that
it would be more appropriate and satisfactory if the matter were allowed to be agitated in a separate suit and without going into the merits of the
case, set aside the judgment of Rajagopalan, J. The judgment, on appeal, is reported as State of Madras v. Kassimiah Charities (1857) 1 M.L.J.
185=70 L.W. 84.
Even earlier, two other landholders of the village had filed O.S. Nos. 64 and 65 of 1953 in the Subordinate Judge''s Court, Kumbakonam, for a
declaration that the notification of the Government applying the Rent Reduction Act to the village was void and for certain other reliefs. The learned
Subordinate Judge, by his judgment dated 6th February, 1957, granted the declaration sought. A.S. No. 271 of 1957 has been filed by the ryots
against the judgment in O.S. No. 64 of 1953. As the subject-matter of the other suit, O.S. No. 65 of 1953 entitled the disappointed parties to
appeal to the District Court only, such an appeal was filed� A.S. No. 81 of 1957�and has since been transferred to this Court and numbered
as App. No. 202 of 1962. The State of Madras have filed S.T.A. No. 6 and 194 of 1958 against those judgments, purporting to do so under S. 4
(2) (b) of Madras Act XXX of 1956. The tenants, the State of Madras, as well as one of the landholders in the village also filed Original Applns.
Nos. 11 52 and 14 of 1959, respectively, before the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Tanjore under S. 3 of Madras Act XXX of 1956. The Tribunal,
on a full consideration of the evidence in the case, came to the conclusion that Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai was not an ""estate"" within the meaning
of S. 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, even as amended by Act XVIII of 1936. The Tribunal''s view was that the grant of
Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai was really a dual one consisting of parts of two different villages and that such grant comprised both the warams.
Both the tenants as well as the State of Madras have filed S.T.A. Nos. 50, 51, 52 and 54 of 1961 and S.T.A. No. 6 of 1962 against that
declaration. The first respondent (the respective plaintiff in O.S. Nos. 64 and 65 of 1953) in A.S. No. 271 of 1957 and 202 of 1962 has filed a
memorandum of cross-objections in each of the appeals against the decree not awarding full costs in the suits.
It is in evidence that as early as the year 1829 there were two areas, Mela Thattimal Padugai and Kizha Thattimal Padugai, the former formed
part of Rajagiri Village and the latter of Papanasam Village. Evidently, both these portions, although there was no geographical contiguity, were
designated as Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai at the time when the East India Co., took over the village and later granted it to the heirs of the last of
Rajahs of Tanjore.
The question that falls to be considered in the present case is, whether Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai is an ""inam"" coming within S. 3 (2) (d) of
the Madras Estates Land Act. That it has been granted by the British Government to the heirs of the Raja is not a matter on which there can be any
controversy. The questions is whether it existed as an entire village at the time of the grant or was it merely two parts of two different villages,
namely, Rajagiri and Papanasam. For the Government, reliance is placed upon Ex. A-1, a copy of the notification issued by the Collector of
Tanjore on 20th June, 1868, soon after the grant by the British Government in favour of the heirs of the Raja. That purports to give a list of the
villages which do not belong to the Government under the heading ""Mukhasa and Chatram etc., villages and Thottams"". There are as many as 139
items ; Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai is one among them. A perusal of that list shows that it includes not merely whole villages but also parts of
villages. There are a number of areas designated by the word ""Thottam"". In regard to at least one of them this Court has held that it was not an
entire village at the time of the grant. The word Thottam means garden or garden land. That can only refer to parts of villages. Not unoften that
word is also used as a suffix. In such cases the name might appertain to a village or to a part of a village. There has been no attempt on the part of
the State to show that at the time of grant, Mela Thattimal Padugai and Kizha Thattimal Padugai were distinct or together formed an entire village.
But it has been argued by the learned Government Pleader that, as at the time of the grant, both Mela Thattimal Padugai and Kizha Thattimal
Padugai were clubbed together and designated by the name ""Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai"", it must be taken that the two areas were treated as a
single village then. The only support for this contention is the notification to which we have just now made reference. But there is nothing in that
document to show that Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai was a single village. It might be that that name was used as a compendious expression to
designate the two bits of land in different villages, which partook the common name of ""Thattimal Padugai"". The other evidence available in the
case appears to support that view. So far as Mela Thattimal Padugai is concerned, there is indisputable evidence, both before and after the grant
of the year 1862, that it formed part of Taraf Rajagiri village only. It is also clear from the evidence that Kizha Thattimal Padugai formed part of
Papanasam Village at least as early as from the year 1829. In 1888 we find that it was divided into two parts, one known as Vadapathi and the
other as Thenpathi, and the latter was merged with Inam Sundaraperumal koil. It was only in the year 1919 that both Kizha Thattimal and Mela
Thattimal were merged together and formed into the present revenue village, No. 5. Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai. This position is made clear
from the paimash accounts and the subsequent surveys. Mela Thattimal, which till 1919 formed part of Rajagiri Village, covered as we said an
extent of 26-21 acres. In the Paimash accounts of the year 1829 the area was designated by Nos. 1272 to 1302. In the survey of the year 1886
the area was represented by S. No. 11 of Rajagiri. In the land register of the year 1919, the area was given Nos. 45 to 49 in the newly formed
No. 5. Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai. Under the Record of Rights Register, the corresponding numbers were S. Nos. 57 to 62.
Now, coming to Kizha Thattimal, which covered an area of 267-44 acres, they were represented Nos. 335 to 614 in the Paimash account of
the Taraf Village of Papanasam. In the survey of 1886 the corresponding numbers were S. Nos. 1 to 10 in No. 2. Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai.
In the land register of 1919 the survey, numbers for that area were put as 1 to 44 in No. 5. Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai. The position continued
to be the same in the survey of 1921. But in the Record of Rights Register, they have been given S. Nos. 1 to 56 in No. 5, Aryapuram Thattimal
Padugai. It will be plain from what we have staked above, that both before and immediately after the grant of the year 1862, the two parts of the
present Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai were attached to different taraf villages and could have only formed part of those villages. This, indeed, can
be taken as admitted. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Government in W.P. No. 737 of 1962, which has been marked as Ex. B. 177 in
the proceedings before the Tribunal, it is stated:
Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai is an unsettled Mukhasa Inam Village not covered by any title deed. It lies in two bits. The first bit consists of S.
Nos. 1 to 56 and the second bit consists of 57 to 62. The petitioner contends that the lands covered by SI. Nos. 1 to 56 with an area of 278-94
acres constitute a single bloc locally known as Keela Thattimal and that the lands covered by Sl. Nos. 57 to 68 with an area of 26-21 acres
constitute another block known as Mela Thattimal, that the Mela Thattimal portion originally formed part of the Government village Rajagiri and
that the other portton Keela Thattimal formed part of the ryotwari village Papanasam. It is also alleged that these two bits were clubbed in the year
1919 as No. 5. Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai and were nonexistent as a separate village prior to the year 1919 and that the two portions of the
village were themselves separate portions of different villages prior to 1919.
The Learned Government Pleader says that there must have been a mistake on the part of the person swearing to that affidavit. We are unable
to accept that explanation in the absence of any materials to support it. In response to a request from one of the landholders, the Collector of
Tanjore, by his endorsement dated 29th January 1953, stated that there was no village by the name Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai in the paimash
register of Papanasam Taluk. This will show that there was no such distinct village of that name, though there were two areas designated as Mela
Thattimal Padugai and Kizha Thattimal Padugai, which perhaps for convenience was referred to as Aryapuram Thattimal at the time of the grant.
It is seen from the survey plan of the year 1886 (Ex. B. 220) that S.N. 11, which covered Mela Thattimal Padugai is found within Rajagiri
Village. Kizha Thattimal Padugai was admittedly part of Papanasam Village. Therefore, the two bits of property must have formed part of different
villages.
It has been contended on behalf of the Government that in asmuchas several lease deed''s filed in the case have referred to Arayapuram
Thattimal Padugai as a village, it must have existed as such at the time of the grant. We do not see how such an inference can be drawn from the
lease deed.
Again except in one case, to which we shall immediately refer, there has been no proved instance of exchange of pattas and muchilikas
between the landholder and the tenant. If Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai was really an ''estate'', it is rather surprising that the tenants have not been
able to produce documents whereby they dealt with the kudiwaram rights in the land, nor of instances of exchange of patta and muchilika.
In the year 1951, one Masilamani Pillai instituted a summary suit before the Sub-Collector, Kumbakonam, under S. 55 of the Madras Estates
Land Act, for obtaining a patta in respect of a land in his occupation in Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai. The matter came up ultimately to this Court
by way of second appeal in S.A. No. 2465 of 1948. There was a controversy in that case as to whether the land in question was situate in no
estate"". Satyanarayana Rao, J., answered that question in the affirmative. But there was no consideration in that case as to whether Aryapuram
Thattimal Padugai was an entire village or whether it was a compendious name used for referring two distinct parts of two different villages ; it
appears that it was assumed to be a single village. The learned Judge, presumably on that assumption that any village which formed park of the
Tanjore Palace Estate must be an ''estate'', came to the conclusion that Arayapuram Thattaimal Padugai was ""estate."" In the light of what we have
said above, we cannot accept that judgment as correct. We are of opinion that the grant of Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai which was comprised in
the major grant by the British Government of 190 villages to the heirs of the last Raja was not of an entire village.
We therefore agree with the conclusion reached by the learned Subordinate Judge as well as by the Tribunal that the grant was of two separate
bits of land lying in two different Taraf villages and that it was not in the year 1919 that they were amalgamated to form what is now known as No.
5 Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai village. The village in question cannot, therefore, be regarded as an ""estate"" within the meaning of S. 3 (2)(d) of the
Madras Estates Land Act. The Appeals are therefore dismissed. There is no substance in the memorandum of cross-objections, which are also
dismissed. The contesting respondents will have their costs in all appeals. One set of Advocates fee to be divided equally among them.