Case: Varada Bhavanarayana Rao Vs. State Of Andhra Pradesh &amp; Ors

1. In the district of Vishakhapatnam in the State of Madras there is a village known by the name of Vandrada. The entire area of this village is now covered by 5 inam grants, by far the major portion being comprised in the inam held by the appellant, Varada Bhavanarayanarao. In 1864 the Inam Commissioner granted fresh inam title deeds in confirmation of the existing inam grants, the total area of the village was recorded as 768.60 acres. Out of this 66.12 acres were un assessed Poramboke; 690.13 acres of dry and wet lands were included in a title deed which is numbered 1082; 9.25 acres were included in title deeds Nos. 940 and 941 granted by the Inam Commissioner covered an area of 3.04 acres. The question in controversy in the present litigation is whether the inam created by the original grant in confirmation of which title deed No. 1082 was issued by the Inam Commissioner forms an "estate" to whichthe Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act, 1947 (Act XXX of 1947) applies. This Act will be later referred to in this judgment as "the Reduction of Rent Act". It is necessary to mention here that Section 1 of this Act provides that it applies to all estates as defined in Section 3 (2) ofthe Madras Estates Land Act, 1908. The relevant portion of Section 3 (2) of the Madras Estates Land Act runsany inam village of which the grant has been made, confirmed or recognised by the 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 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 ......The Special Officer appointed by the Government of Madras under Section 2 of the Rent Reduction Act decided that the inam lands in respect of which title deed 1082 had been issued and which now admittedly are held in inam by the appellant formed an "estate". Accordingly, the officer, acting under the Act recommended fair and equitable rates of rent for the raiyati lands in this estate. On June 27, 1950, the Government of Madras published in the Gazette a notification fixing the rates of rents payable in respect of lands in the village in accordance with these recommendations. Aggrieved by this action of the Government the appellant moved the High Court of Madras under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of mandamus directing the State to forbear from giving effect to the notification. The High Court held that the remedy of the petitioner was by way of suit and dismissed the application, on an undertaking given by the Government that it would waive its right to the notice under Section 80 of theCode of Civil Procedure. It was after this that the appellant filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam, the suit out of which this appeal has arisen.3. In his plaint the appellant averred that for the lands comprised under title deed No. 1082, there was neither the grant of a whole village nor of a named village. It was also stated by the appellant that the lands now covered by the single title deed of 1082 originally formed the subject-matter of several separate grants. The plaintiff further averred that out of the lands of the village not included in any of the earlier grants, further grants were made subsequently which were separately confirmed and separate title deeds-Title deeds Nos. 940, 941 and Nos. 179 and 180 - were issued in respect of them. It was mainly on the basis of these averments that the plaintiff contended that his lands covered by the title deed No. 1082 were not at all an estate and prayed for a declaration to this effect. The State of Madras was the main defendant in the suit and contested the plaintiffs claim. In its written statement the State pleaded that there was in respect of the suit land a single grant of a named village and that it was not true that from out of any reserved lands further grants were made subsequently. Accordingly, it was urged that the plaintiffs contention that these lands did not form an estate should be rejected. Similar pleas were raised also by defendants 2 to 31 who were impleaded as the tenants cultivating some of the lands covered by the title deed 1082.4. The trial Court held that as the original grant is shown by the entries in the Inam Fair Register to have been made to a number of persons and there were deductions for poramboke and for personal and service inams, and further because even though the original grant may have been under a single transaction the confirmation was not by one title deed, the suit lands did not constitute an estate as defined in Section 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act.5. On appeal by the State of Madras, the High Court of Madras came to a contrary conclusion. The High Court pointed out that the opinion of the Trial Judge that to constitute an estate the confirmation must be under one grant was unsupportable. In the opinion of the High Court the entries in the Inam Fair Register showed that the grant consisted of a named village and it was the inam as granted that was confirmed by the Inam Commissioner. The High Court also expressed its view that "the whole Inam "Inquiry proceeded on the footing that it was the whole village, excepting the two minor inams, that was given in inam to Chatti Venkatacharlu etc." The High Court accordingly allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit with costs.6. Against this decision of the High Court the present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff on a certificate granted by the High Court.

Reasoning: 13. Another reason which makes it difficult for us to accept Mr. Rama Reddys argument is the actual language used in Explanation (1) The last portion of the Explanation clearly indicates that the conclusion that the area is an "estate" can be drawn even where the whole of the village is not included in the grant, only if it appears that the portion not included ha already been gifted was therefore lost to the tenure. The addition of the last clause in the Explanation brings out the fact that the legislature did not intend to go quite as far as the High Court had gone in the case of Narayanaswami Nayudu ILR 39 Mad 683: (AIR 1916 Mad 263).14. On a consideration of the history of the language used in the Explanation and also the circumstances in which the Explanation came to be added, we have come to the conclusion that the legislature being well aware of the difficulties of proving whether the minor grants had been granted prior to or subsequent to the grant of a named village, decided to leave the matter easy as between the contending parties created no presumption either way.15. That being the position, the question on which of the contending parties the burden of proof would lie has to be decided on the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act. Section 101 of the Evidence Act provides that whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. Section 102 provides that the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. Section 103 provides that the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the burden of proof of that fact shall he on any particular person.16. Applying these principles, we find that the plaintiff who asks the Court for a declaration that the area covered by the title deed 1082 is not an estate must prove that it is not an "estate". If no evidence were given on either side the plaintiff would fail. For, we have found that there is no presumption in law either that the area in question is an estate or that it is not an estate. It follows from this that the plaintiff who is to prove that the suit lands do not form an estate must show that the minor inams were granted subsequent to the date of the inam grant of the named village. The plaintiff has clearly failed to discharge this burden.17. We have therefore come to the conclusion, though for reasons different from what found favour with the High Court, that the plaintiffs suit has been rightly dismissed.