RAMANADHAN CHETTIAR Vs. STATE OF MADRAS AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are against the judgment of Rajagopalan, J., disposing of two petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, and raise the same point, namely, whether the grant to the appellant's predecessor was of a whole village. There was also another question whether the grant was of both the melwaram and kudiwaram. That question, however, is covered by a finding of fact that the grant consisted only of the melwaram. All the three members of the Estates Abolition Tribunal held that the grant was of a whole village. The appellant sought in the above two petitions to have the order of the Tribunal quashed and also to have the notification issued by the Government under the Rent Reduction Act in respect of the same village also quashed. Rajagopalan, J., held that it could not be said that there was no evidence before the Tribunal on which it could come to the conclusion that it came to, namely, that the grant was of a whole village, and that therefore there was no ground on which the order could be quashed.

(2.) MR . V. Vedantachari, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the order of the Tribunal was vitiated by an error apparent on its face, namely, that the Tribunal cast the onus on the land -holder, that is, the appellant, to prove that the grant was not of a whole village. He relied strongly on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in District Board, Tanjore v. M. K. Noor Mohamed Rowdier,, 1932 -2 Mad LJ 586: (AIR 1953 SC 448) (A).