RAJAGIRI VENKATA RAMINAIDU Vs. PUSAPATI SURYANARAYANAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the Judgment and Decree or the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Srikakulam in O.S. No. 13 of 1954, which was a suit for a declaration that Devarapodilam Agraharam situated within the geographical limits of the former Vizianagaram Zamindari is an 'estate' and that the tenants are entitled to occupancy rights. The suit was instituted in a representative capacity on behalf of all the tenants. The first defendant is a major inamdarini of the Agraharam and the second defendant is her power-of-attorney. The third defendant is another inamdar. The defendants were also sued in a representative capacity with the permission of the Court obtained in a petition filed under Order 1, rule 8, Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) Briefly stated, the case for the plaintiffs was that Devarapodilam was a post-settlement inam grant made by the Zamindar of Vizianagaram, that the grantees had a melwaram interest only in the village by the time of the permanent settlement, and that, therefore, the tenants had acquired rights of occupancy. It was averred that, at its inception, the grant was of a named and a whole village and, therefore, an 'estate' within the meaning of section 3(2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act. The defendants contended, inter alia, that Devarapodilam was a pre-settlement grant; that the inamdars were entitled to the melwaram and kudiwaram rights in the village ; and that the grant was of a specified extent of land and not a named or a whole village. According to the defendants, Devarapodilam was the kasba or the parent village and Gangadharapalem, the hamlet.

(3.) It may be mentioned at the outset that in an enquiry held under the provisions of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXVI of 1948), which authorises the Settlement Officer to adjudicate upon the question as to whether an inam village is an 'estate', it was held by him that Devarapodilam was not an 'inam estate' within the meaning of the Madras Act XXVI of 1948. The expression 'inam estate' before its recent amendment, did not include within its ambit 'inam villages' which became 'estates' by reason of the Third Amendment Act. Therefore, the decision of the Settlement Officer that the grant is not an 'inam estate' is not conclusive on the question as to whether the village is an 'estate' under section 3 (2) (d). But in a notification issued by the Government under the provisions of the Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act (XXX of 1947), it has been held that Devarapodilam is not an 'estate'. The effect of the notification, therefore, is that the Government have considered the grant is not an 'estate' within the meaning of section 3(2)(d). Though Madras Act XXVI of 1948 applies only to 'inam estates', Madras Act XXX of 1947 applies to all villages which have become 'estates' by the enlgarged definition of section 3 (2) (d).