V. Subramania Thevar vs Kannan and others

Raju, J.—These appeals have been filed u/s 30 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inam (Abolition sad Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, Tamil

Nadu Act 30 of 1963, (hereinafter referred to as ""the Act""), against the orders of the Inam Estates Abolition Tribunal (Subordinate Judge),

Thanjavur, wherein the Tribunal below has chosen to reverse the orders passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Thanjavur, granting patta in

favour of the appellants or their predecessors-in-interest u/s 8(1) of the Act. Though in the individual appeals, the factual details may vary and

differ, in some respects or other, the overall submissions made in all these appeals overlap and virtually certain common points have been raised in

me appeals, though the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in some of the cases pointed out one or me other additional factual details or

points as going former to support the case of the respective respondents. Mr. K. Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for me appellants,

instructed by Mr. Satish Parasaran, contended tint me Tribunal below committed a serious error of law as also of fact in reversing the orders of the

Assistant Settlement Officer, Thanjavur. The submission of die learned counsel for the appellants in that the Tribunal below failed to keep into

account the principles laid down by the Privy Council in the decision in Lakshmanna v. Venkateswarlu (1949 II 500=62 L.W. 684) and on this

ground alone, the orders of the Tribunal are liable to be set aside. That was a case wherein the holder of a minor inam appears to have filed a suit

to eject the tenants from their respective holding and their Lordships of the Privy Council held in that context that the burden is on the plaintiff to

make out a right to evict by proving that the grant included both melwaram and kudiwaram interests or that the tenants or their predecessors were

let into possession by the inamdar under a terminable lease and where the evidence is not conclusive, the suit must tail as the burden on the plaintiff

is not discharged. In our view, the said decision will have no relevance or application to the cases on hand, for the reasons that the proceedings

before us have not emanated out of a suit before a Civil Court, that the proceedings before us do not concern with themselves the right of the

inamdar to eject a tenant under him under law prior to the abolition of the inam and the introduction of ryotwari settlement in the area and that

further for the fact that in the proceedings before us, we have to concern ourselves and consider the competing claims asserted for the grant of

patta under a special enactment by finding out the existence or otherwise of necessary eligibility criteria for allowing patta to either of a parties

before us.

The learned counsel for the appellants further contended mat the Tribunal below failed to see in the appeals before it that the respondents-

claimants have not proved that they are entitled to kudiwaram interest or for that respect, both warams in the lands in question. There is no dispute

by the appellants that they do not hold or claim to have held melwaram interest in the lands and mat what they assert is not even, in our view, a

claim that they were grantees of kudiwaram interest. But, their claim is on the basis of the alleged defect in the proof of the claim projected by the

respondents. In substance, the appellants claim that as long as the respondents and their predecessors-in-interest have not shown to have acquired

or held or shown to be entitled to both warams, namely, kudiwaram as well as melwaram interest in the lands, the appellants and their

predecessors-in-interest as persons in Continuous possession and occupation of the lands are entitled to patta under the provisions of the Act and

the grant of patta made in their favour by the Assistant Settlement Officer in recognition of their rights by virtue of their possession and cultivation of

the lands in question should not have been interfered with by the Tribunal below.

We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side in these appeals. The learned counsel for the

appellants sought to place reliance upon the decision of this Court in Jalini Ammal (died) A & another v. Sri Vedaranyaswami Devasthanam and

another (1992-2-L. W. 320) and State of Tamil Nadu v. His Holiness Sri La Sri Ambalavana Pandara Sannadhi Adheenakartha & others (1997-

2 L.W. 531) of the Apex Court. In our view, the decisions relied upon do not in any way help the appellants to substantiate the claim in question.

The decisions relied upon turned on the peculiar concept of private lands and ryoti lands and the respective rights of the tiller of the soil and such

concepts also particularly in the context of the landholder being a religious institution. So far as the case on hand is concerned, the contesting claim

is between two private individuals claiming to be entitled to patta under the Act in terms of Section 8(1) of the Act. The considerations which have

to weigh with the Authorities under the Act to grant patta, would also considerably differ. That apart, some of the observations found mentioned in

those and in other decisions sought to be pressed into service by the learned counsel for the appellants, pertain to the reputability of the statutory

presumptions contained in the Act about the particular class of lands relating to any inam granted for the benefit of any religious, educational or

charitable institutions or for rendering service being a grant comprised of both warams or not. In these cases before us, we are not concerned with

the construction or interpretation of any grant as such or Inam title deeds. On the other hand, there are absolutely no materials whatsoever for the

appellants to prove that they or their predecessors-in-interest are the grantees of any right, be it kudiwaram or melwaram interest in the lands. The

right that is sought to be projected is based merely on the possession and cultivation of the lands. Even in respect of the said right, it cannot be

stated that they have substantiated any claim of acquisition of any right of permanent possession or occupancy rights. Per contra, the materials on

record disclosed, as have been adverted to in some of the orders under challenge before us, that the appellants have been asserting initially only

tenancy rights of cultivating tenants, and there appears to have been proceedings before the Civil Court and revenue authorities in that context and

it is only after the notification of the inam under the Act in question, they appear to have shifted to stand to assert a claim for patta under the Act.

Any person claiming to be entitled to kudiwaram right has to prove the same by virtue of any grant in his favour or in favour of his predecessors-

in-interest and the kudiwaram interest being a peculiar concept depending upon the status and grant only, could not be claimed to have been

acquired by mere possession or cultivation of lands for any length of time. Such rights as an ordinary cultivating tenant have got to be asserted or

sustained or substantiated only under the ordinary tenancy laws. In view of the above and the factual details noticed in the orders challenged before

us, the appellants-could not claim to have substantiated their right for patta under the Act, particularly u/s 8(1) of the Act as the persons lawfully

entitled to kudiwaram in the inam lands immediately before the appointed day. Consequently, we see no merit in the claim of the appellants in this

regard. The learned counsel for the appellants also contended that the documents relied upon in the form of irrigation memoir of inam Thiruvallur

village in question and the Record of Rights register as also the lease deeds are not sufficient in law to substantiate the right claimed by the

respondents and the Tribunal below committed an error in placing reliance upon those documents to sustain the claim for patta projected by the

respondents. On a consideration of the said claim, we are of the view that the Tribunal below as also the respondents before us appear to be well

justified in relying upon the information contained in the said public documents disclosing that the lands situate within the said village comprised of

iruwaram lands to the tune of 351.98 acres, minor inam to tune of 3.74 acres and poramboke lands to the tune of 43.68 acres, as a relevant

material to substantiate the claim that the majority of the lands excluding a negligible portion of 3.74 acres of minor inam and poramboke lands as

noticed above, the entire extent of the lands are iruwaram lands. If that be the position, we find nothing wrong or any serious error in the Tribunal

below proceeding on the assumption that the lands in question stood factually established as iruwaram lands and the said fact stood supported by

the information contained in the Record of Rights register also. Having regard to all these, we do not find any merit in the challenge made at the

instance of the appellants to the orders of the Tribunal below. The orders of the Tribunal are not shown to be vitiated on account of any patent

error of law or perversity of approach in the matter of appreciation of the materials on record. Consequently, these appeals fail and shall stand

dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.