STATE OF MADRAS BY COLLECTOR OF RAMANATHAPURAM Vs. RAMESWARAM DEVASTHANAM BY TRUSTEE V.B. KUPPUSWAMI MUDALIAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two connected appeals preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge of Ramanathapuram in A.S. No. 32 of 1954, reversing the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Ramanathapuram, in O.S. No. 9 of 1953.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff Rameswaram Devasthanam was 80 out of 84 shares in Venkatankurichi village in Paramakudi Taluk were given in Inam to the plaintiff Devasthanam by the ancestors of the Raja of Ramanathapuram and the remaining four shares were granted in Inam to the Dharmasanamdars. The Inam was confirmed in favour of the Devasthanam for the 80 shares and Inam Title Deed No. 794 was issued. For the Dharmasanamdars another title deed was issued, both Inams having been confirmed separately. Inasmuch as the confirmation was made in different portions, the village is not an estate under the Madras Estates Land Act. Consequently the provisions of the Madras Estates Land Reduction of Rent Act and the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act do not apply to the suit village. The Settlement Officer held in an enquiry that the grant not being of a whole Inam village, the suit village was not an Inam estate. In spite of the said decision, the Government issued a Notification under the Madras Act XXX of 1947 in respect of the suit village. The plaintiff filed C.M.P. No. 12038 of 1950 on the file of this Court to issue a writ of certiorari and to quash the proceedings taken by the Government under the Rent Reduction Act. This Court dismissed the application holding that the Rent Reduction Act was not ultra vires and indicated that merits of individual cases might be decided in separate suits. The Advocate -General waived notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code. Defendants 2 to 20 got impleaded on their own motion for themselves and as the representatives of all the tenants in the suit village.

(3.) THE point for determination is whether what has been granted to the plaintiff Devasthanam is an estate within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act. It would be an estate if originally the entire village was granted to the Devasthanam. On the other hand, it would not be an estate if what was granted to the Devasthanam was only a part of the village.