DEVULAPALLI RAMAMOORTHY SASTRI Vs. JALLU AMMANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question for determination in this batch of caaes is whether as held by the Courts below the village of Timmarajupalem agraharam is a whole village inam falling within Section 3 (2) (d), Madras Estates Land Act, as amended by the Madras Estates Land Amending Act, II [2] of 1945. On that depends the determination n of other questions such as whether the defendants have occupancy rights and whether the civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suits. The Courts below (the District Munsif of Kovvur and on appeal the Subordinate Judge of Elluru) either dismissed the suits or returned the plaints for presentation to the revenue Court in the view that they took in favour of the defendants that the agraharam is an estate within the s'atute. The plaintiff, the senior proprietor of the agraharam village has therefore filed these second appeals, revision petitions and civil miscellaneous appeals.

(2.) IT is clear from Ex. D -12 dated 8 -12 -1902, a certified copy of the Permanent Settlement eanad given to the Zamindar of Nauzvid by the Governor -General, Lord Clive, that the agraharam was a sivar of himlet included in the list of villages forming the estate for which the sanad was issued. It is clear too from Ex. P. 1, an extract of the register of inams prepared on 5 -12 -1860 that the agraharam was a sivar or hamlet of Nidadavole granted by the Zemindar Sri Raja Veakatairi Apparao Garu toone Tripurantaka Somayajulu in 1166 F. The later revenue documents filed in the case however show that the Agraharam came to be treated as an independent village satisfying the definition of 'Village' contained in Section 3 (19) of the Act. On these facts the learned Subordinate Judge, founding himself upon an unrepotted decision of a single Judge of this Court, Shahabuddin J. in C. R. P. No. 1007 to 1014 of 1942, has held that the agraharam is an 'estate' within Section 3 (2) (d) of the Act read in conjunction with Expl. (1) introduced by the Madras Act II [2] of 1945.

(3.) THIS apparently is what Patanjali Sastri J. had in mind in making the observation to which I shall presently refer in his judgment of the Court consisting of himself and Bell J. in A. A. O. nOS. 584 of 1944 and 873 of 1945. Those appeals related to certain lands in Patha Pentapadu known as Penfcapadu agrabaram and described in the instrument of grant as a hamlet of Pentapadu village. It was observed in the judgment of the Court : 'No doubt, Patha Pentapadu, which was known as Pentapadu Agraharam even at the time of the inam Settlement to distinguish it from the adjoining Government village of Kasba Pentapada, had been recognised to be a separate village and treated as such in the revenue accounts long before the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, was passed, and it might therefore be said thai in view of the definition of village as meaning, among other things, a local area which is now recognised by the Provincial Government to be a village, it is sufficient for purposes of Section 3 (2) (d), that the grant comprised a local area which was recognised by the Government to be a village at the commencement of the Act. But it is to be observed that Section 3 (19) refers only to village 'situated in or constituting an estate'. To Import that definition into Sub -clause (d) of Section 3 (2) which itself defines one category of 'estates' would lead to repugnancy in the context. The defective draftsmanship involved in defining terms by employing them one in another, which gives rise to puzzles of construction, has been commented upon by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Narayanaraju v. Suryanarayudu .' The view that for any village to be regarded as an estate within Section 3 (2) (d) of the Act it must be a whole village granted as such and not a part of a whole village which subsequently might come to be recognised by the Government as a whole village is the view taken in two other decisions of this Court by two single Judges, Panchapagesa Sastri J. and Mack J. in C. R. P. Nos. 593 to 601 of 1947 and C. R. P. IOS. 1432 to 1437 of 1946 respectively.