THIRUVAVADUTHURAI ADHEENAM BY ITS ADHEENAKARTHAR SRI LA SRI SUBRAMANIA PANDARA SANNADHI AVERGAL (DIED) AND HIS HOLINESS SRI LA SRI AMBALAVANA PANDARA SANNADHI AVERGAL PRESENT ADHEENAKARTHA THIRUVAVADUTHURAI ADHEENAM Vs. STATE OF MADRAS BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam. The petition relates to a notification issued by the Government under Madras Act XXVI of 1963, fixing : the 1st day of October, 1966 as the appointed day on which the provisions of that Act would take effect in relation to the village of Kodarankulam. The petitioner states that the lands were originally leased by the Nawab of Carnatic to one Ragho Pandit, that later the lease was converted into Kattukuthagai, that on the assumption of power by the British Government full assessment was charged annually, and that finally during the Inam settlement the inam tenure was converted into a. permanent freehold and title deed 204 dated 10th September, 1864 was issued by the Government. The petitioner's contention is that the inam which has been enfranchised stands on the same footing as ryotwari land, and that the provisions of Madras Act XXVI could not be applied to the village. The contention on behalf of the Government, however, is that the term " freehold " in relation to inam is only the conferment of the right of alienation free from the restrictions, that the inam character itself was not abolished, that the word " freehold " in inam was used in two different senses, (1) a freehold in perpetuity subject to the payment of quit rent and (2) absolute freehold free of all tax whatever was due to the Government, that this is not a case of permanent freehold, that if there was no inam tenure, the title deed would not have -been issued under the rules framed in the Settlement of Inams, and that the contention of the petitioner that the village is not at all an inam is not maintainable.

(2.) BUT for the strange arguments advanced in this case, I would not have considered that this matter lends itself to any argument whatsoever in answer to the contentions on behalf of the petitioner. The arguments ignore the whole course of inam proceedings, the purpose for which the Inam Commission was set up and the result of the activities of the Inam Commission. In the Collection of papers relating to the Inam Settlement in the Madras Presidency, Volume 1, published by the Madras Government in 1948, at page 46, we find minutes by the President of the Board at that time. The minutes contain proposals for settlement of inams, and, with regard to personal inams to which class the inam in this case relates, at page 53, it is stated as follows:

(3.) THE Madras Enfranchised Inams Act, 1862 has this preamble.