STATE OF MADRAS Vs. KARUMUTHU THIAGARAJAN CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent as purchaser of certain Inam lands in village Siruvengai-Peruvengai filed a suit disputing the power of the State of Madras to issue notifications in respect of that village under Act 30 of 1947 as the village of Siruvengai-Peruvengani was not an estate as defined in cl. (d) sub-s. (2) of S. 3 of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, that is, it was not an "Inam village of which the grant had been made, confirmed or recognized by the Government." It is conceded that the notification could not issue if the respondent's contention about the village was right. Now, it is well settled and not in question that except in the cases covered by the explanations in cl. (d) the Inam village referred to in this definition must be a whole village, that is, the whole village must have been granted as Inam. No question arises in in the present case as to the application of the explanations.

(2.) The respondent advanced three contentions in support of his case that SiruvengaiPeruvengai was not an estate within S. 3 (2)(d). He first said that Siruvengai-Peruvengai was not a whole village but was a part of the village of Tirukkalapatti. Then he said that the grant of the Inam had not been to a single person but there were thirty-two different grants to thirty-two persons so that there is not one grant of the village of Siruvengai-Peruvengai. Lastly, he said that what had been confirmed by the Inam Commissioner was a grant of half of the village and not of the whole village. The trial Court rejected all these contentions and dismissed the suit. The High Court of Madras on appeal agreed with trial Court on the second contention but reversed its decision accepting the first and third contentions advanced by the respondent. It is against this judgment of the High Court that the State of Madras has come in appeal to this Court.

(3.) In this Court the appellant State contended that the High Courts view on the first and third contentions mentioned above was incorrect. We think it unnecessary to consider the first for it seems to us that the third contention of the respondent is right, that is, what was confirmed by the Government was not the grant of an Inam of the village of Siruvengai-Peruvengai assuming it to be a whole village, but of half the area of it. If this is correct then, of course, the appeal must fail.