SREEMAN MADABUSI VADI MATHEBA KANTEERAVAM Vs. MADEPALLI VENKATARAYUDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal and these batches of civil revision petitions raise the same point for determination, namely, whether Medupalli Agraharam is an Page 1 of 4 Sreeman Madabusi Vadi Matheba Kanteeravam Satagoparamanujacharyulu vs. Made... 6/19/2007 estate within the meaning of Section 3 (2), Estates Land Act. It has now two landlords who originally belonged to the same family, Venkatarangacharyulu and Ramanujacharyulu. S. A. No. 2235 of 1946 arises out of a suit for rent filed by the latter claiming nearly Rs. 585 as rent from three tenants. The District Munsif holding that Medupalli Agraharam was not an estate decreed the suit. The civil revision petitions arise out of batches of suits for ejectment by these landlords in which on a finding that this agraharam was an estate and that the tenants had occupancy rights, the plaints were returned for presentation to the Revenue Court. The learned Subordinate Judge of Ellore heard all the resulting appeals along with other batches of appeals arising out of two other villages, Pentapadu Agraharam and Devaracheruvu Kandrika in a common judgment in which he held that these were all estates under Section 3 (2) of the Act. He accordingly dismissed all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals as regards return of the plaints for representation to the Revenue Court and allowed Appeal No. 246 of 1944 in which the District Munsif decreed the suit for rent out of which second appeal No. 2235 of 1946 arises.

(2.) The learned Subordinate Judge saw no grounds for differentiating between these three Agraharams and treated them all on the same footing on the basis of Explanation 1 to Section 3-(2). As amended by Madras Act II [2] of 1945, it reads as follows : "Where a grant as an inam is expressed of a named village, the area which forma the subject-matter of the grant shall be deemed to be an estate notwithstanding that it did not include certain lands in the village of that name which have already been granted on service or other tenure or been reserved for communal purposes."

(3.) There has been a complication as regards this omnibus finding by the learned Subordinate Judge as the tenants from these three Agraharams have filed separate revision petitions as regards which separate treatment was necessitated. In a batch of civil revision petitions (NOS. 1432 to 1437 of 1946) arising out of this common judgment filed by the landlords of Pantepadu Agraharam and Devaracheruvu Kandrika, I held that they were not estates within the meaning of Section 3 (2) (d) of the Act, holding myself bound by an unreported Bench decision by Patanjali Sastri and Bell JJ., in Venkatarangacharyulu v. Mukku Ganganna, A. A. O. No. 584 of 1944 and A. A. O. No. 373 of 1945 in which Pentapadu Agraharam was held to be not an estate even within the meaning of Explanation 1 as amended by Act II [2] of 1945. In that litigation the original grant of Pentapadu Agraharam was produced describing the subject-matter as "Patha Pentapad hamlet of Pentapad village." As regards Devaracheruvu Kandrika, it was an inam in Pentapadu itself though not included in two Pentapadu Agraharams, which were confirmed under two title deeds. The word "Kandrika" itself means part of a village. In that batch of revision petitions the tenants of those two Agraharams made no appearance, doubtless in view of the tenure of Pentapad Agraharam having been conclusively determined by the unreported Bench decision to which I have referred.