The State of Madras vs R.S. Seeni Mohamed and others

Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.—This is an appeal by the State under S. 7 of the Madras Act XXX of 1956 against the order of the Tribunal holding that the village of Chakravalanallur in Ramanathapuram Taluk is not an inam estate. The Inam Settlement Officer suo motu commenced an enquiry under the provisions of Madras Act XXVI of 1948. He came to the conclusion that the village is an inam estate. On appeal, the Tribunal was not convinced that the village was an inam coming within the meaning of S. 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act. In that view it became unnecessary for it to go into the further question whether it is an inam estate or not. The facts are these: There was a dharmasanam grant of the entire village in the year 1733 by the Rajah of Ramanathapuram in favour of certain Brahmins. The nature of the Inam was Bhattavrithi and it was to enure hereditarily in the families of the grantees. The entire village is divided into 44 pangus. Several years later the Dewan of Ramanathapuram acquired 4� shares out of the total extent of 44 shares in the village and this area was subsequently granted in favour of Sri Sivasubramania Swami Temple in Peruvayal. There can be little doubt that this acquisition by the Dewan was on behalf of the Rajah of Ramanathapuram, who later granted the area acquired to the temple as a minor inam. Both these inams were confirmed by the British Government and separate title deeds were issued to the grantees successors. So far as the subsequent grant is concerned, it has been described in the Inam Fair Register as permanent one for the support of the Pagoda of Sivasubramaniaswami in Peruvayal in Ramnad Taluk. The question that falls for consideration is whether the grant that was made in 1733 as confirmed by the Government was of the whole village. Quite recently the Supreme Court in C.A. No. 478 of 1962 pointed out that there, after the date of the grant, the grantee had alienated the inam land and in the course of enfranchisement proceedings the entire area of the land granted was confirmed but separate title deeds were issued in favour of persons in possession of different plots, the confirmation should not be held to be of the entire village. While reaching that conclusion the Supreme Court approved of the decision of this Court in Burugu Viswanadham Brothers Vs. Yarru Subbaiya, . In that case there was a grant of an entire village to a person as Bhattivarti Shrotriam Inam prior to the Inam Settlement a sub-grant was made by the grantee of some portion of the inam and at the time of Settlement the Inam Commissioner confirmed both the grants and issued separate title deeds. Kuppuswami Aiyar J., held that there was no confirmation of the grant of the entire village at such. The cast before us is, in our opinion, similar to the decision in Viswanatha Bros., Guntur v. Subbaiya AIR 1945 Mad. 378=58 L.W. 258, But the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant however contends that the present case should be treated as one where there has been a confirmation of the entire grant of 1733, that therefore it should be deemed to be only grant recognised by the Inam Commissioner and that the mere fact that separate title deeds were issued to the descendants of the original grantees as well as to the temple cannot affect the real character of the confirmation. We are, however, unable to accept that contention. The nature and character of the two inams are different. From the relevant extract of the Fair Inam Register, we see a distinction was made between the minor grant which has been described as a grant to the temple for all time, while the major grant has been described as hereditary Bhatavrithi Inam. It is therefore not a mere case of the temple acquiring by purchase, title to the property from the successors of the original grantees. On the other hand, it is a case of the grantor himself acquiring part of the area and making a grant of the part so acquired. Such a case is, in our opinion, would be governed by the first of the two categories of cases set out in the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above the confirmation of the grant of the village of Chakravalanallur cannot therefore be held to be of the entire village. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.