Case: Gondumogula Tatayya Vs. Penumatcha Ananda Vijaya Venkatarama Timma Jagapathiraju(A

renumbered as Explanations (2) and (3) respectively and a new Explanation was inserted as Explanation (1) by S. 2 (1) of the Madras Estates Land (Amendment) Act, 1945, (Madras Act II of 1945). The reasons why the amendments became necessary have been explained in the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in M. Bhavanarayana v M. Venkatadu. ILR (1954) Mad 116: (AIR 1954 Mad 415 ). In Naravanaswami Nayudu v. Subramanyam TLR 39 Mad 683: (AIR 1916 Mad 263) it was observed by the Madras High Court that the existence of service inams was very common in villages and that where there was a subsequent grant of the village, to hold that such grant was not an estate as defined in S. 3 (2) (d) by reason of the existence of minor inams would result in the exclusion of agraharams, shrotriyams and mokhasa villages from the operation of the Act and that could not have been the intention of the Legislature. In that decision Srinivasa Ayyangar, J. observed:"The definition in sub-section 3, clause (d) was obviously intended to exclude from the definition of Estate what are known as minor inams, namely, particular extents of land in a particular village as contrasted with the grant of the whole village by its boundaries. The latter are known as whole inam villages. The existence of minor inams in whole inam villages is very common and if these inam villages do not come within the definition of Estate almost all the agraharams, shrotriyam and mokhasa villages will be excluded. This certainly cannot have been the intention of the Legislature. "This interpretation of S. 3 (2) (d) was accepted without question until the decision in Ademma v. Satyadhyana Thirtha Swamivaru, 1943-2 Mad LJ 289: (AIR 1943 Mad 187 ) where for the first time a different note was struck. It was held therein that where portions of the estate had previously been granted as minor inams, a subsequent grant of the rest of the village was not of an estate as it was not of the whole village. The Legislature thereupon intervened and enacted Explanation (1) with the object of restoring the view of the law which had been held before the decision in 1943-22 Mad 289: (AIR 1943 Mad 187 ).The crucial test to find out whether the subject-matter of a grant falls within the definition of an estate under S. 3 (2) (d) of the Act is whether at the time of the grant the subject-matter was a whole village or only a part of a village. If at the time of the grant it was only a part of a village, then the amending Act makes no difference to this and such a part would not be an estate within the meaning of the term. But if the grant was of the whole village and a named one, then it would be an estate. Learned Advocate for the appellants has referred us to the Mokhasa sanad of December 8, 1802. That sanad gives a list of villages of which Goteru is one. The argument of learned Advocate for the appellants is that the inam lands being within village Goteru, they also are "estates" within the meaning of S. 3 (2) (d) read with Explanation (1). It appears to us that this argument is clearly erroneous. There is no doubt that the Mokhasa grant is an estate within the meaning of the S. 3 (2) of the Madras Estates Land Act, and that is not disputed before us. That does not however, mean that the minor inams would also constitute an estate within the meaning of S. 3 (2) (d). As was pointed out in ILR (1954) Mad 116 : (AIR 1954 Mad 415 (FB) ) the crucial test is whether at the time of the grant the subject-matter was a whole village or only part of a village.In District Board, Tanjore v. M. K. Noor Mohamed Rowther, AIR 1953 S C 446 this Court observed that Any inam village" in Sec. 3 (2) (d) meant a whole village granted in inam and not anything less than a village however big a part it might be of that village. In other words, the grant must either comprise the whole area of a village or must be so expressed as is tantamount to the grant of a named village as a whole, even though it does not comprise the whole of the village area, and in the latter case, in order to come within the scope of the definition it must fulfil the conditions: (a) the words of the grant should expressly (and not by implication) make it a grant of a particular village as such by name and not a grant of a defined specific area only; and (b) that the area excluded had already been granted for service or other tenure, or (c) that it had been reserved for communal purposes. The minor inams under consideration in these suits were pre-settlement inams and the finding which cannot now be challenged is that they were excluded from the assets of the zamindari at the time of the permanent settlement in 1802, though the Mokhasas were not so excluded. That being the position, the minor inams were not grants of whole villages and were not estates within the meaning of S. 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act. Therefore, the appellants cannot claim the benefit of S. 6 of the said Act.8. Learned Advocate for the appellants also addressed us at some length on the beneficent nature of the provisions of the Madras Estates Land Act and submitted that the appellants herein should not be deprived of the benefits of that Act. But the appellants must satisfy us first that they come within the protection or benefits of the Act. If the lands which they held were not an "estate" within the meaning of the Act, then there can be no question of giving them the benefit of the Act.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]This interpretation of S. 3 (2) (d) was accepted without question until the decision in Ademma v. Satyadhyana Thirtha Swamivaru, 1943-2 Mad LJ 289: (AIR 1943 Mad 187  ) where for the first time a different note was struck. It was held therein that where portions of the estate had previously been granted as minor inams, a subsequent grant of the rest of the village was not of an estate as it was not of the whole village. The Legislature thereupon intervened and enacted Explanation (1) with the object of restoring the view of the law which had been held before the decision in 1943-22 Mad 289: (AIR 1943 Mad 187  ).The crucial test to find out whether the subject-matter of a grant falls within the definition of an estate under S. 3 (2) (d) of the Act is whether at the time of the grant the subject-matter was a whole village or only a part of a village. If at the time of the grant it was only a part of a village, then the amending Act makes no difference to this and such a part would not be an estate within the meaning of the term. But if the grant was of the whole village and a named one, then it would be an estate. Learned Advocate for the appellants has referred us to the Mokhasa sanad of December 8, 1802. That sanad gives a list of villages of which Goteru is one. The argument of learned Advocate for the appellants is that the inam lands being within village Goteru, they also are "estates" within the meaning of S. 3 (2) (d) read with Explanation (1). It appears to us that this argument is clearly erroneous. There is no doubt that the Mokhasa grant is an estate within the meaning of the S. 3 (2) of the Madras Estates Land Act, and that is not disputed before us. That does not however, mean that the minor inams would also constitute an estate within the meaning of S. 3 (2) (d). As was pointed out in ILR (1954) Mad 116 : (AIR 1954 Mad 415   (FB) ) the crucial test is whether at the time of the grant the subject-matter was a whole village or only part of a village.In District Board, Tanjore v. M. K. Noor Mohamed Rowther, AIR 1953 S C 446 this Court observed that Any inam village" in Sec. 3 (2) (d) meant a whole village granted in inam and not anything less than a village however big a part it might be of that village. In other words, the grant must either comprise the whole area of a village or must be so expressed as is tantamount to the grant of a named village as a whole, even though it does not comprise the whole of the village area, and in the latter case, in order to come within the scope of the definition it must fulfil the conditions: (a) the words of the grant should expressly (and not by implication) make it a grant of a particular village as such by name and not a grant of a defined specific area only; and (b) that the area excluded had already been granted for service or other tenure, or (c) that it had been reserved for communal purposes. The minor inams under consideration in these suits were pre-settlement inams and the finding which cannot now be challenged is that they were excluded from the assets of the zamindari at the time of the permanent settlement in 1802, though the Mokhasas were not so excluded. That being the position, the minor inams were not grants of whole villages and were not estates within the meaning of S. 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act. Therefore, the appellants cannot claim the benefit of S. 6 of the said Act.8. Learned Advocate for the appellants also addressed us at some length on the beneficent nature of the provisions of the Madras Estates Land Act and submitted that the appellants herein should not be deprived of the benefits of that Act. But the appellants must satisfy us first that they come within the protection or benefits of the Act. If the lands which they held were not an "estate" within the meaning of the Act, then there can be no question of giving them the benefit of theinterpretation of S. 3 (2) (d) was accepted without question until the decision in Ademma v. Satyadhyana Thirtha Swamivaru, 1943-2 Mad LJ 289: (AIR 1943 Mad 187  ) where for the first time a different note was struck. It was held therein that where portions of the estate had previously been granted as minor inams, a subsequent grant of the rest of the village was not of an estate as it was not of the whole village. The Legislature thereupon intervened and enacted Explanation (1) with the object of restoring the view of the law which had been held before the decision in 1943-22 Mad 289: (AIR 1943 Mad 187  ).The crucial test to find out whether the subject-matter of a grant falls within the definition of an estate under S. 3 (2) (d) of the Act is whether at the time of the grant the subject-matter was a whole village or only a part of a village. If at the time of the grant it was only a part of a village, then the amending Act makes no difference to this and such a part would not be an estate within the meaning of the term. But if the grant was of the whole village and a named one, then it would be an estate. Learned Advocate for the appellants has referred us to the Mokhasa sanad of December 8, 1802. That sanad gives a list of villages of which Goteru is one. The argument of learned Advocate for the appellants is that the inam lands being within village Goteru, they also are "estates" within the meaning of S. 3 (2) (d) read with Explanation (1). It appears to us that this argument is clearly erroneous. There is no doubt that the Mokhasa grant is an estate within the meaning of the S. 3 (2) of the Madras Estates Land Act, and that is not disputed before us. That does not however, mean that the minor inams would also constitute an estate within the meaning of S. 3 (2) (d). As was pointed out in ILR (1954) Mad 116 : (AIR 1954 Mad 415   (FB) ) the crucial test is whether at the time of the grant the subject-matter was a whole village or only part of a village.In District Board, Tanjore v. M. K. Noor Mohamed Rowther, AIR 1953 S C 446 this Court observed that Any inam village" in Sec. 3 (2) (d) meant a whole village granted in inam and not anything less than a village however big a part it might be of that village. In other words, the grant must either comprise the whole area of a village or must be so expressed as is tantamount to the grant of a named village as a whole, even though it does not comprise the whole of the village area, and in the latter case, in order to come within the scope of the definition it must fulfil the conditions: (a) the words of the grant should expressly (and not by implication) make it a grant of a particular village as such by name and not a grant of a defined specific area only; and (b) that the area excluded had already been granted for service or other tenure, or (c) that it had been reserved for communal purposes. The minor inams under consideration in these suits were pre-settlement inams and the finding which cannot now be challenged is that they were excluded from the assets of the zamindari at the time of the permanent settlement in 1802, though the Mokhasas were not so excluded. That being the position, the minor inams were not grants of whole villages and were not estates within the meaning of S. 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act. Therefore, the appellants cannot claim the benefit of S. 6 of the said Act.