Case: State Of Madras Vs. P. Govindarajulu Naidu

2. The facts may be briefly stated. Mothirambedu village is one of the shrotriem villages in the Chingleput district in the State of Madras. The respondent purchased the same from one P. Anathapadma-nabacharlu under a sale deed, dated July 10, 1946, for a sum of Rs. 26,000, and was in possession and enjoyment thereof. On December 12, 1950, the Government of Madras issued a notification under Section 3 of the Act taking over the said village as a zamin estate. The Government took possession of the same on January 3, 1951. On March 15, 1954, the respondent filed O. S. No. 22 of 1954 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Chingleput, againt the State of Madras for a declaration that the said notification of his village as zamindari estate under the said Act was illegal and void. In the plaint he claimed that the said village was not an "estate" within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act and, therefore it did not vest in the State. But that plea was subsequently given up and nothing need be said in that regard. The State filed a written-statement asserting that the said village formed part of Tirumazhy Zamindari, that it was separately registered in the office of the Collector and that, therefore, it was a zamin estate within the meaning of the said Act3. The learned Subordinate Judge, Chingleput, held that the suit village was a zamin estate and that, therefore, the said notification was legal and binding on the respondent. On appeal, the High Court of Judicature at Madras held that it was not proved that the said village was a zamin village, but it was a whole inam village. On that finding it granted the plaintiff a declaration that the notification of the said village as a zamin estate under the Act was illegal and void, as the said village was a whole inam village. Hence the appeal.

Reasoning:
16. The respondent placed before the Court various sale deeds to support his title to the said village. Under Ex. A-6 a saledeed, dated September 2, 1919, Haji Usman Sahib sold the exclusive miras of Mothirambedu to Rangachariar. In the sale deed Mothirambedu is described in different places as Miras Mitta, zamin village, Mothirambedu zamin village and Mothirambedu Ega Bhoga Miras zamin. "Ega Bhogam" means in Tamil possession or tenure of village land by one person of family without any co-sharer. No doubt the word "zamin" is ordinarily used to denote the estate of a zamindar, that is the proprietor under the permanent settlement. But the expression "zamindar" is also adopted by some of the inamdars as an honorific term. A mere popular description of an under-tenure village as a zamin does not make it a zamin estate under the Act, if it is not one in fact. Indeed, the document shows that in some parts, for instance in Schedule A, Mothirambedu has been described as Ega Bhoga Miras Mothirambedu zamin village and in Schedule B, Melmanambedu village is described as Shrotriem Melmanambedu village, whereas in the preamble to the document Mothirambedu is described as Miras of Mothirambedu, and Melmanambedu, as Zamin Melmanambedu. This shows that the character of the village has not been described with any legal precision. What is more, the character of this village was in dispute in a suit between the zamindar and tenants in the year 1921. That suit ultimatch went up to the High Court and a Division Bench of the Madras High Court desposed of the appeal on November 23, 1927. The Judgment is marked as Ex. A-4. Therein the High Court pointed out that the zamindar who was the appellant did not produce the sannad nor did he file any old records relating to the zamindari on the ground that they were not available in the Collectors office. The only evidence adduced to support his contention was the fact that in regard to the village fixed assessment was paid from the year 1856 onwards, and that it was referred to in certain Government registers as zamin village. The High Court accepted the finding of the subordinate Judge that it was not a part of the zamindari. Except the certified copy of the Kamuliat executed by Venkiah, the then zamindar, which does not include this village and the unsigned statement alleged to have been filed in the permanent settlement proceedings, which is not proved, no further material evidence has been placed in the present proceeding. We do not see any justification to take a different view from that accepted by the High Court in the year 192717. From the discussion of the aforesaid evidence, the following facts emerge: In 1796 Mr. Lionel Place, the then Collector of the Honourable Companys Jagheer. Granted a cowle to Rangaswamy Mudali, who was occupying the office of a Nattuvar, conferring on him the mirasi of Mothirambedu village and another village permanently, subject to his paying all just dues. At the time of the making of the permanent settlement in Chingleput District, which was then described as a Jagir, it was decided by the Company to maintain Shrotriem, i.e., grants made to Nattuvars, including those granted by Mr. Lionel Place, and realise their dues throught the instrumentality of the zamindar. This policy was implemented by including the shrotriems in the zamindari by transferring the Companys ultimate reversionary rights to the zamindar. The result was that the shrotriem tenure in the hands of the Nattuvars continued after the permanent settlement as it existed prior to it. That is the reason why sometimes the village was described as zamin village and sometimes as Jari Inam village. That is also why it was not the subject-matter of permanent inam settlement. But the fact remains that Shrotriem tenure continued in the hands of the Nattuvar and his successors-in-interest, after the permanent settlement as it was before the said settlement. The tenure under the Government became an under-tenure under the zamindar, as the zamindar intervened between the Government and the Nattuvar. As the village is held under a permanent under-tenure, it falls squarely under the definition of S. 3 (2) (e) of the Madras Estates Land Act and is, therefore, an estate there-under and hence it is an under-tenure estate. As the under-tenure estate is excluded from the definition of "zamin estate", the notification issued by the Government on the basis that it is a zamin estate is void and the High Court rightly declared it as void.