Appeals Nos 54 to 65 67 and 69 to 71 of 1963
Appeals from the judgment and decree dated January 10 1956 of the Madras High Court in Appeal Suit Nos 223 and 224 of 1951 and 264 to 273 275 and 277 to 279 of 1952
R Kesava Iyengar R Thiagarajan and R Ganapathy Iyer for the appellants in all the appeals
Bishan Narain and O P Malhotra for respondent No 1 in CA Nos 54 and 55 of 1963
M R K Pillai for respondent No 2 in CA No 55 of 1963 and for the respondents in CAs56 to 65 67 to 71 of 1963
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami J
These appeals are brought against the judgment and decree in AS nos223 and 224 of 1951 264 to 273 of 1952 275 of 1952 and 277 to 279 of 1952 of the Madras High Court dated January _10 1956 affirming the judgment and decree in OS nos75 77 to 81 of 1949 and 19 to 22 24 to 26 28  30 to 31 of 1950 of the Subordinate Judge Tanjore
The appellant instituted the above mentioned suits for re covery of possession from the respective defendants of the disputed lands and for payment of damages at the rate of Rs 501per annum per acre
The case of the appellant was that the disputed lands which were purchased by him by a sale deed dated November 11 1948 exhibit A 145 are situated in Orathur Padugai which is attached to Pannimangalam one of the villages comprised in what is known as the Tanjore Palace Estate that 756 the said lands are not situated in an estate as defined by the Madras Estates Land Act 1 of 1908 hereinafter referred to as the Act  and in any event the said lands are private lands  of the appellant and not ryoti lands  as defined in the Act and the various defendants are trespassers in unlawful occupation of the lands and had no right to continue in possession and were therefore liable to ejectment
The appellant also claimed that the defendants were liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs 501 per annum per acre in respect of the lands in their unlawful occupation
The defence in all the suits was substantially the same
it was contended by the defendants that the disputed lands are situated in an estate within the meaning of section 3 2 d of the Act that the lands are ryoti lands  in which they have permanent right of occupancy and that they are not private lands as alleged by the appellant and the civil court had therefore no jurisdiction to entertain the suits and the Revenue Courts alone had jurisdiction
By his two judgments dated October 1 1950 and February 2 1951 the Subordinate Judge Tanjore dismissed the suits holding that the lands were situated in an estate and were ryoti lands  in which the defendants were entitled to occupancy rights
The appellant took the matter in appeal to the Madras High Court which affirmed the decision of the trial court and dismissed all the appeals
The two principal questions which are presented for deter mination in these appeals are  1 whether the suit lands are located in an estate within the meaning of section 3 2 d of the Act and 2   if the answer to the first question is in the affirmative whether the suit lands are private lands  or ryoti lands  as defined in the Act
Section 3 2 d of the Act as originally enacted states 3In this Act unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context 2 Estate  means d any village of which the land revenue alone has been granted in inam to a person not owning the kudivaram thereof provided that the grant has been made confirmed or recognised by the British Government or any separated part of such village The section was amended by the Madras Estates Land Third Amendment Act 18 of 1936 to the following effect 757  d any inam village of which the grant has been made confirmed or recognised by the British Government notwithstanding that subsequent to the grant the village has been partitioned among the grantees or the successors in title of the grantee or grantees
Explanation 1 Where an inam village is resumed by the Governmentit shall cease to be an estate but if any village so resumed is subsequently regranted by the Government as an main it shall from the date of such re grant be regarded as an estate
Explanation 2 Where a portion of an inam village is resumed by the Government such portion shall cease to be part of the estate but the rest of the village shall be deemed to be an inam village for the purposes of this sub clause
If the portion so resumed or any part thereof is subsequently regranted by the Government as an inam such portion or part shall from the date of such re grant be regarded as forming part of the inam village for the purposes of this sub clause
 By section 2 of the Madras Act 11 of 1945 section 3 of the Act was further amended as follows Section 2  1 In sub clause d of clause 2 of section 3 of the Madras Estates Land Act 1908 hereinafter referred to as the said Act Explanations 1 and 2 shall be renumbered as Explanations 2 and 3 respectively and the following shall be inserted as Explanation 1namely  Explanation 1 Where a grant as an inam is expressed to be of a named village the area which forms the subject matter of the grant shall be deemed to be an estate notwithstanding that it did not include certain lands in the village of that name which have already been granted on service or other tenure or been reserved for communal purposes  2The amendment made by sub section 1 be deemed to have had effect as from the date on which the Madras Estates Land Third Amendment Act 758 1936 came into force and the said Amendment shall be read and construed accordingly for all purposes Section 319 of the Act has defined a Village as follows  Village  means any local area situated in or constituting an estate which is designated as a village in the revenue accounts and for which the revenue accounts are separately maintained by one or more karnams or which is now recognised by the State Government or may hereafter be declared by the State Government for the purposes of this Act to be a village and includes any hamlet or hamlets which may be attached thereto
 The history of what is known as the Tanjore Palace Estate is well known and will be found in various reported decisions of the Judicial Committee and of the Madras High Court  See Jijoyiamba Bayi Saiba vs Kamakshi Bayi Saibal Sundaram Ayyar vs Ramachandra Ayyar2 Maharaja of Kolhapur vs Sundaram Iyer 3 and Chota Raja Saheb Mohitai vs Sundram Iyer4
In 1799 Serfoji the then Raja of Tanjore surrendered his territory into the hands of the East India Company but he was allowed to retain possession of certain villages and lands which constituted his private property
When his son the last Raja died in 1855 without leaving male issue the East India Company took possession of all his properties including his private property
Thereupon the senior widow Kamachee Boye Sababa filed a Bill on the Enquiry Side of the Supreme Court of Madras and obtained a decree that the seizure of the private properties was wrong
On appeal by the Secretary of State in Council of India the Privy Council reversed the decree and ordered the dismissal of the Bill
Thereafter a memorial was submitted to the Queen and in 1862 the Government of India which had succeeded the East India Company sanctioned the relinquishment of the whole of the landed property of the Tanjore Raj in favour of the heirs of the late Raja
Under instructions from the Government of India the Government of Madras on August 21 1862 passed an order the material part of which is as follows  In Col Durand s letter above recorded the Government of India have furnished their instructions with reference to the disposal of the landed property of the Tanjore Raj regarding which this Government addressed them under date the 17th May last
Their decision is to the effect that since it is doubtful whether the lands in question can be legally dealt with as State property and since the plea in equity and policy for treating them as the private property of the Raja is so strong that it commands the unanimous support of the members of the Madras Government  the whole of the lands are to be relinquished in favour of the heirs of the late Raja page 228
The Tan ore Palace Estate came into being as a result of this grant
The question in these appeals is whether the property invol ved in the suits being a part of the Tanjore Palace Estate can be considered to be an estate within the meaning of the term in the Act
It was conceded by the Counsel for the appellant that if it was part of an inam it would be an estate  within the meaning of that Act
It was however contended that the manner in which the property reverted to the widows of the Raja in 1862 after an act of State did not show that the estate was freshly granted but was restored to the widows who enjoyed both the warams in the same way as the warams were enjoyed before
To put it differently the argument was that the effect of restoration or re linquishment was only the undoing of the wrong and therefore if the villages were the private properties of the Raja at the time of the seizure then the same character is maintained when they were handed back to his widow
The contention was that what actually happened in 1862 was the restoration of the status quo ante rather than a fresh grant by the British Government
The argument is not a new one but has been raised before and rejected in a number of authorities
In Jijoyiama Bayi Saiba vs Kamakshi Bayi Saiba1 it was held by the Madras High Court that the Government Order 1862 was a grant of grace and favour to persons who had forfeited all claims to the personal properties of the Rajah by the act of State and was not a revival of any antecedent rights which they might have bad
A similar opinion of the grant was expressed in a Full Bench case of the Madras High Court in Sundaram Ayyar vs Ramachandra Ayyar2 But in Maharaja of Kolhapur vs Sundaram Iyer3 Spencer OCJ appeared to doubt the decision of Scotland CJ in Jijoyiamba Bayi Saiba vs Kamakshi Bayi Saibal that there was a grant of grace and favour in 1862
A similar view was taken in Sundaram vs Deva Sankara4 but these cases have been subsequently explained or not accepted on this point
In TR Bhavani Shankar Joshi vs Somasundra Moopanar1 it was held by this Court that the act of State having made no distinction between the private and public properties of the Rajah the private properties were lost by the Act of State leaving no right outstanding in the existing claimants
The Government Order 1862 was therefore a fresh grant due to the bounty of the Government and not because of any antecedent rights in the grantees
It was pointed out that the words relinquished or restored in the Government Order did not have the legal effect of reviving any such right because no rights survived the act of State
The root of title of the grantees was the Government Order of l862 and it was therefore held that the restoration amounted to a grant in inam by the British Government within the meaning of the Act
But the question whether with regard to any particular area what was granted in inam is a whole village or less than a whole village is a question that has to be decided with reference to the facts of each particular case
The question therefore arises whether the area in question viz Orathur Padugai constitutes a whole village and therefore an estate within the meaning of section 3 2 d of the Act
It was contended for the appellant that the suit lands were not comprised in a whole inam village
The contention was rejected by both the lower courts which concurrently held that the lands were located in Orathur Padugai a whole village by itself or a named village and therefore an estate within the meaning of the Act
It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the finding of the lower courts is vitiated in law because it is based on no evidence
In our opinion there is no justification for this argument
On behalf of the respondents reference was made to exhibit A 64 Pannimangalam Vattam Jamabandhi Account individual war Fasli 1296 which shows in column No 3 Orathur Padugai as a village 
Similarly in exhibit A 78a Cess account for Pannimangalam Vattam and exhibit A 79 the Village war Jamabandhi Account Fasli 1309 Orathur Padugai village is shown as a whole village
Exhibit A 82 Village war Jamabandhi Individual War Fasli  Jamabandhi Ghoshpara for the village Fasli 1311 and ExsA 153 to A 157 all mention Orathur Padugai as a village
All the leases lease auctions and receipts given for payment of rent speak of Orathur Padugai as a separate village
Even the sale deeds ExsB 6 B 31 B 32 and B 33 contain a recital of Orathur Padugai as a separate village
It is manifest therefore that there is sufficient material to show that at least since 1830 onwards Orathur Padugai is a whole village
On behalf of the appellant reference was made 1 761 to exhibit A 128 and exhibit A 129 dated April 6 1800 and July 5 1800
Exhibit A 128 is a letter from the President Tanjore to the Secretary to the Government of Madras in which there is a reference to Pannimungalam
It is stated therein that the fields of Pannymungalam to the westward of Tanjore which from time immemorial have been reserved for the pasture of the circar cow do remain in the Raja s possession
There is neither village nor cultivation on these lands
In answer to this letter there is a communication from the Chief Secretary to the Government to the Resident Tanjore exhibit A 129
In para 5 of this letter it is stated The fields of Pucanymangalam containing neither village nor cultivation shall remain in the hands of Rajah for the pasturage of His Excellency s cows
 Much reliance was placed by Counsel for the appellant on these two documents but the High Court has rightly pointed out that the identity of the lands referred to in Exs A 128 and A 129 is doubtful
The lands in suit ate situated at least 30 miles south east of Tanjore town in Mannaroudi taluk but in ExsA 128 and A 129 the lands are described as westward of Tanjore
That there was Orathur village in existence even as early as 1830 is clear from exhibit A 151 because in describing certain boundaries of another village it is mentioned as to the north of assessed Orathur village nadappu karai bund pathway
Exhibit A 4 of 1868 is a Debit and Credit Balance account relating to Orathur Padugai attached to Mukasa Pannimangalam Thattimal
It is clear from this Exhibit that the entire village except the waste land was assessed
From Exhibit A 5 dated September 4 1870 it appears that the punja lands in Orathur village were taken on lease from the Collector of Tanjore who was the receiver and manager of the estate of the Rajah of Tanjore for a period of 5 years on payment of a total sum of Rs 12293
Exhibits A 7 A 8 A 12 to A 16 and A 18 are either Adaiyolai muchilikas or lease deeds for leasing the lands in Orathur padugai village for a term ranted by the Collector of Tanjore
In all these documents the description is that the lands are situated in Orathur Padugai in Mokhasa Pannymangalam Thattimal
The documents range between the years 1870 to 1875
In ExA 63 which is the individual war settlement register for Pannymangalam vattam for Fasli 1296 against column 6 it is stated that the income in the matter of the amani cultivation of sugarcane etc on 95 kullis is Rs 4 and it is in Orathur padugai village Pannymangalam vattam
Exhibit A 61 is the debit and credit balance account of Orathur padugai for Fasli 1294
Similarly in exhibit A 64 the individual war settlement register for Pannimangalam vattam column 3 relating to the village of Orathur states that the Orathur padugai is a village and the vattam is Pannimangalam
There are similar des 762 criptions of Orathur as a village in exhibit A 65 which is the settlement register for Pannimangalam vattam for Fasli 1297
Exhibit A 80 contains a similar description of Orathur village in Pannimangalam vattam
Exhibits A 153 to A 155 and A 157 are all lease deeds between the years from 1901 to 1906 relating to lease of lands in Orathur padugai
It is manifest that there is sufficient evidence to show that from 1868 right up to 1907 Orathur padugai was considered as a separate village
It was contended for the respondents that even after the passing of the Act Orathur padugai was treated as a separate village
Reference was made in this connection to a number of documents ExsA 158 A 105 A 159 A 106 A 116 A 161 B 17A 117 to A 120 B 18 A 12 1 A 1 62 and A 1 63
In our opinion the finding of the lower courts that Orathur padugai is a whole village and therefore constitutes an estate  within the meaning of the Act is supported by proper evidence and Counsel for the appellant is unable to make good his argument that the finding of the lower courts is in any way defective in law
We proceed to consider the next question arising in this case viz whether the suit lands are private lands  within the meaning of section 3  1 0 b of the Act which reads as follows  3In this Act unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context     10 Private land  b in the case of an estate within the meaning of sub clause d of clause 2 means i the domain or home farm land of the landholder by whatever designation known such as kambattam khas sir or pannai or ii land which is proved to have been cultivated as private land by the landholder himself by his own servants or by hired labour with his own or hired stock for a continuous period of twelve years immediately before the first day of July 1908 provided that the landholder has retained the kudivaram ever since and has not converted the land into ryoti land or iii land which is proved to have been cultivated by landholder himself by his own servants or by hired labour with his own or hired stock for a continuous period of twelve years immediately before the first day of November 1933 provided that the landholder has 763 retained the kudivaram ever since and has not converted the land into ryoti land or iv land the entire kudivaram in which was acquired by the landholder before the first day of November 1933 for valuable consideration from a person owning the kudivaram but not the melvaram provided that the landholder has retained the kudivaram ever since and has not converted the land into ryoti land and provided further that where the kudivaram was acquired at a sale for arrears of rent the land shall not be deemed to be private land unless it is proved to have been cultivated by the land holder himself by his own servants or by hired labour with his own or hired stock for a continuous period of twelve years since the acquisition of the land and before the commencement of the Madras Estates Land Third Amendment Act 1936
 Section 316 of the Act defines Ryoti land  as follows  Ryoti land  means cultivable land in an estate other than private land but does not include a beds and bunds of tanks and of supply drainage surplus or irrigation channels b threshing floor cattle stands village sites and other lands situated in any estate which are set apart for the common use of the villagers c lands ranted on service tenure either free of rent or on favourable rates of rent if granted before the passing of this Act or free of rent if granted after that date so long as the service tenure subsists
 Section 185 of the Act enacts a presumption that land in inam village is not private land and reads as follows  185When in any suit or proceeding it becomes necessary to determine whether any land is the landholder s private land regard shall be had 1 to local custom 2 in the case of an estate within the meaning of sub clause a b c or e of clause 2 of section 3 to the question whether the land was before the first day of July 1898 specifically let as private land and 3 to any other evidence that may be produced Provided that the land shall be presumed not to be private land until the contrary is proved 764 Provided further that in the case of an estate within the meaning of sub clause d of clause 2 of section 3 i any expression in a lease patta or the like executed or issued on or after the first day of July 1918 to the effect or implying that a tenant has no right of occupancy or that his right of occupancy is limited or restricted in any manner shall not be admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving that the land concerned was private land at the commencement of the tenancy and ii any such expression in a lease patta or the like executed or issued before the first day of July 1918 shall not by itself be sufficient for the purpose of proving that the land concerned was private land at the com mencement of the tenancy
 Section 6 is to the following effect 61 Subject to the provisions of this Act every ryot now in possession or who shall hereafter be admitted by a landholder to possession of ryoti land situated in the estate of such landholder shall have a permanent right of occupancy in his holding
Explanation 1For the purposes of this subsection the expression every ryo t now in possession  shall include every person who having held land as a ryot continues in possession of such land at the commencement of this Act
The Subordinate Judge and the High Court have concurrently come to the conclusion upon consideration of the evidence that the lands in suit are not private lands but ryoti lands
On behalf of the appellant Mr Kesava Iyengar conceded that onus is on the appellant to show that the lands are private lands  within the meaning of the Act  but the argument was stressed that the lower courts have failed to take into account certain important documents filed on behalf of the appellant viz A 128 A 129 and the Paimash account dated August 25 and the Land Register exhibit A 134
In our opinion there is no warrant for the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant
As regards Exs A 128 and A 129 it is apparent that apart from the question as to the identity of the land they relate to a period previous to the grant of 1862 which alone constitutes the root of title of the grantees and there is no question of restoration or revival of any anterior right
The same reasoning applies to the Paimash account dated August 25 which 765 cannot therefore be held to be of much relevance in this connection
Reliance was placed on behalf of the appellant on exhibit A 134 the Land Register for Pannimangalam which shows that in Orathur Thattimal Padugai which consists of Punjais dry lands and are rain fed the land holder the Tanjore Palace Estate owns both the warams Iruwaram in vernacular
It was argued for the appellant that the expression Iruwaram  means that the land was owned as Pannai or private lands
Reference was made to the record of rights and Irrigation Memoir dated January 13 1935 exhibit B 8 which shows that the lands are lruwaram and there are no wet lands
But the use of the expression Iruwaram in these documents is not decisive of the question whether the land is private land of the appellant or not
Under section 310 of the Act private land comprises of two categories private lands technically so called and lands deemed to be private lands
In regard to private lands technically so called it must be the domain or home farm land of the landholder aunderstood in law
The mere fact that particular lands are described in popular parlance as pannai kambattam sir khas is not decisive of the question unless the lands so called partake of the characteristics of domain or homefarm lands
In our opinion the correct test to ascertain whether a land is domain or home farm is that accepted by the Judicial Committee in Yerlagadda Malikarjuna Prasad Nayudu vs Somayya1 that is whether it is land which a zamindar has cultivated himself and intends to retain as resumable for cultivation by himself even if from time to time he demises for a season
The Legislature did not use the words domain or home farm land  without attaching to them a meaning and it is reasonable to suppose that the Legislature would attach to these words the meaning which would be given to them in ordinary English
It seems to us that the sub clause b i of the definition is intended to cover those lands which come obviously within what would Ordinarily be recognised as the domain or home farm that is to say lands appurtenant to the landholder s residence and kept for his enjoyment and use
The home farm is land which the landlord cultivates himself as distinct from land which he lets out to tenants to be farmed
The first clause is therefore meant to include and signify those lands which are in the ordinary sense of he word home farm lands
The other clauses of the definition appear to deal with those lands which would not necessarily be regarded as home farm lands in the ordinary usage of the term and with reference to those lands there is a proviso that lands purchased at a sale for arrears of revenue shall not be regarded as private lands unless cultivated directly by the landlord for the required period
It seeing to us that the definition reads as a whole 1 ILR 3 SupCI68 5 766 indicates clearly that the ordinary test for private land  is the  test of retention by the landholder for his personal use and cultivation by him or under his personal supervision
No doubt such lands may be let on short leases for the convenience of the landholder without losing their distinctive character but it is not the intention or the scheme of the Act to treat as private those lands with reference to which the only peculiarity is the fact that the landlord owns both the warams in the lands and has been letting them out on short term leases
There must in our opinion be something in the evidence either by way of proof of direct cultivation or by some clear indication of an intent to regard these lands as retained for the personal use of the landholder and his establishment in order to place those lands in the special category of private lands in which a tenant under the Act cannot acquire occupancy rights
In the present case there is no proof that the lands were ever directly cultivated by the landholder
Admittedly soon after the grant of 1862 the estate came under the administration of Receivers who always let out the lands to the tenants to be cultivated
In exhibit B 8 the Record of Rights the lands are entered in column 5 as Punja or dry land
In column 4 which requires the entry to be made as private land they are not entered as private lands
If was argued for the appellant that the lands are sometimes called Padugai  and that the expression meant that the lands were within the flood bank and forming part of the river bed
But the description of the land as Padugai  is not of much consequence because they are also called as Orathur Thottam meaning a garden where garden crops are raised to distinguish it from paddy fields
It appears that the lands actually lie between two rivers and comprise more than 100 acres and by their physical feature cannot be padugai  in the sense in which the term is normally used
The argument was stressed on behalf of the appellant that leasing rights of the land were auctioned periodically
But the High Court has observed that one and the same tenant continued to bid at the auction and there was evidence that tenants continued to cultivate the lands without break or change and the fact that there were periodical auctions of the lease rights did not necessarily deprive the tenants of the occupancy rights which they e  were enjoying
We accordingly hold that the appellant has not adduced sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption under section 18 of the Act that the lands in the inam village are not private land and the argument of the appellant on this aspect of the case must be rejected
For the reasons expressed we hold that the judgment of the Madras High Court dated January 10 1956 is correct and these appeals must be dismissed with costs one set of hearing fee


Summary:
When the Raja of Tanjore died in 1855 without leaving male issue the East India Company took possession of all his properties including his private property
However on a memorial being presented by the senior widow of the late Raja the Government of India in 1862 sanctioned the relinquishment of the whole of the landed property of the Tanjore Raja in favour of the heirs of the late Raja
 The Tanjore Palace Estate thus came into existence
In 1948 the appellant purchased certain lands situate in Orathur Padugai which was part of the aforesaid Tanjore Palace Estate and thereafter instituted suits for possession of these lands from various defendants
The trial court dismissed the suits on the ground that the lands were situated in an estate under section 32d of the Madras Estates Lands Act 1 of 1908 and they were ryoti lands  as defined in section 316 in which the defendants had acquired occupancy rights
The Madras High Court affirmed the decree whereupon the appellant came to this Court
it was contended on behalf of the appellant that i the lands did not form an estate  under section 3 2 d of the aforesaid Act because the restora tion of the land to the widows of the Raja of Tanjore did not amount to a fresh grant but only a restoration of the status quo ante ii that Orathur Padugai was not a whole village as required by the definition of estate  iii the widows of the Raja enjoyed both the warams  and the lands purchased by the appellant were private lands  in section 310b so that the defendants did not have any occupancy rights therein
HELD i The relinquishment by the Government of India in favour of the widows of the Raja in 1862 was a fresh grant as already held in several cases
In view of the authorities it could no longer be questioned that the Tanjore Palace state was an estate  within the meaning of section 32d of the Madras Estates Lands Act
759 F 760 B Jijoiamba Bayi Saiba vs Kamakshi Bayi Saiba 3 MH CR 424 Sundaram Ayyar vs Ramachandra Ayyar ILR 40 Mad
3891 Maharaja of Kolhapur vs Sondaram Iyer ILR 48 Mad 1 Sundaram vs Deva Sankara AIR 1918 Mad
428 and T R Bhavani Shankar Joshi vs Somasunakra Moopanar  relied on
Chota Raja
Saheb Mahitai vs Suddaram Iyer 63 IA 224 referred to
ii There was sufficient material on the record to show that at least since 1830 onwards Orathur Padugai was a whole village and therefore an estate  within the meaning of the Act
762 C iii The lands in suit were ryoti lands  and not private lands 
The definition in section 310 read as a whole indicates clearly that the ordinary test for private land  is the test of retention by the landholder 7 5 5 for his own personal use and cultivation by him or under his personal supervision
No doubt such lands may be let on short leases for the convenience of the landholder without losing their distinctive character but it is not  the intention or the scheme of the Act to treat as private those lands with reference to which the only peculiarity is the fact that the landlord owns both the warams in the lands and has been letting them out on short cases
1765 H 766 B In the present case there was no proof that the lands were ever directly cultivated by the landholder
The High Court had found that the same tenants continued to cultivate the lands without break or change and the fact that there were periodical auctions of the lease rights did not necessarily deprive the tenants of the occupancy rights which they were enjoying
The appellant had not been able to adduce sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption under section 185 of the Act that the lands in the inam village are not private lands
766 C G Yerlagadda Malikarjuna Prasad Nayudu vs Somayya ILR  referred to with approval