DRONAMRAJU SESHAGIRI RAO Vs. GODITHI RAMMAYYA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two civil miscellaneous appeals and eight civil revision petitions are connected. I shall deal with the revision petitions first as all of them raise the same point.

(2.) THE mokhasadars of Chilakapadu and Muppavaram filed suits in the District Munsiff 's Court of Tanuku against their tenants for the recovery of rent and for ejectment. The tenants pleaded that they had occupancy rights in the lands as they form part of an "estate " within the meaning of the Estates Land Act and that the Civil Courts had no jurisdiction. This plea was upheld by the District MunsifF who directed the plaints to be returned for presentation to the proper Court. On appeals preferred by the mokhasadars, the Subordinate Judge of Ellore, reached the same conclusion and confirmed the decrees of the District Munsiff. These revision petitions are from the decision of the Subordinate Judge and raise the question whether the lands form part of an estate in which the defendants have occupancy rights. It was contended for the petitioners that the lands were not part of an estate for two reasons : firstly, because Clause (d) of Section 3(2) of the Estates Land Act will not apply as there is nothing to show that the grant was of an entire village and secondly, that Clause (e) of Section 3(2) is not applicable, as the grant was only of specific lands in the villages and not of one or more villages of any of the estates specified in Clauses (a), (b) and (c):

(3.) SUB -clause (e) of Section 3(2) speaks of" any portion consisting of one or more villages of any of the estates specified above in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) which is held on a permanent under -tenure." The contention of the petitioners is that in the cases before us we have not got an entire village or villages forming part of the estates as defined in Sub -clauses (a), (b) and (c) and which are held.on a permanent under -tenure. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the entries in the in am fair register and the inam statement printed in C.R.P. No. 1506 of 1943, The inam fair register is Ex. I and the inam statement is Ex. I -a. Mr. Satyanarayana Rao referred to the fact that, besides giving the total extent comprised in the mokhasa grant, the inam register specifies the several numbers of the fields also which is consistent only with the theory that the villages, Chilakapadu and Muppa -varam, in their entirety, were not treated as the subject of the mokhasa grant but only some fields in those villages. He further referred to the fact that the numbers of the fields were not consecutive and some numbers like 12, 13, 18, 28, 32, 33, etc., in Chilakapadu and numbers 4, 6, 20, 28, 37, 38, etc., in Muppavaram were omitted. Such an inference, viz., what was granted is not the entire village of Chilakapadu or Muppavaram but only certain fields in those villages - -does not appear to me to be warranted by the entries. The register and the statement speak of the villages as mokhasa and the boundaries given indicate that the grant comprised the villages themselves. It was necessary for those who prepared the inam register to specify the extents and the fields for the purpose of arriving at the cist or jodi that had to be paid as it was then believed that these mokhasas were excluded from the assets of the zamindari at the time of the permanent settlement and that the Government had the right of reversion. Subsequently this belief was found to be ill -founded and the Government gave up further steps as regards the mokhasa grants in pursuance of reports made by the Commissioner (Mr. Taylor) on enquiries made by the Board of Revenue of the Collector and the final sanction of the Secretary of State on a letter addressed to him by the Madras Government about the true state of affairs which turned out to be that these mokhasa grants were included in the assets when the peshcush was calculated. :