POPURI RAMAYYA Vs. PUTCHA LAKSHMINARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a consolidated appeal against a judgment and 13 orders dated 11 October 1927, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, which set aside a judgment and 13 orders dated 9th August 1922 of the Court of the District Munsif of Tenali. The appellants are the respective defendants in 13 suits brought by the respondent to recover rent or damages for use and occupation of agricultural holdings in the respondent's enfranchised inam village of Siripuram, and the only question in the appeal is whether the jurisdiction of the ordinary civil Courts is excluded by virtue of S. 189, Madras Estates Land Act 1 of 1908. It is clear that, in the present case, the determination of that question will depend on whether the respondent's village is an "estate" as defined in S. 3 (2) of the Act. The District Munsif held that the village is an estate under the Act, and that he had no jurisdiction to try the suits. The High Court held a contrary view and remanded the suits to be tried by the District Munsif.

(2.) The suit village was originally within the ancient zamindari of Chilakalurpeta, which was held by the Manuru family under an imperial grant of 1707 from the Mogul Emperor Aurangzeb. In fasli 1219, i. e., the year 1810, the Raja of Chilakalurpeta granted the village of Siripuram in perpetuity as an Agraharam to one Vedala Rangacharlu, a Brahmin resident of another village called Peddavaram, on a shrotriyam of 80 pagodas (Rs. 320). In the lower Courts the respondent alleged two earlier grants of 1784 and 1799 - prior to the permanent settlement of 1802 - but these were rejected, and it may now be taken that the grant was in 1810.

(3.) In 1846 the zamindari of Chilakalurpeta was sold for arrears of revenue and was purchased by the Government. In 1861 the agraharam of Siripuram village was confirmed and enfranchised on a combined quit-rent of Rs. 361 by the Inam Commissioner. The interest of the Inamdar was subsequently purchased by Putcha Sitaramayya, the adoptive father of the respondent, and he created a trust in favour of the Sri Kasi Visweswara Annapurna Choultry at Bezwada in respect of a large portion of the lands in Siripuram Agraharam, constituting himself as the Dharmakarta of the charity, and providing for the hereditary Dharmakartaship in the family. After the death of Sitaramayya in 1908, his widow adopted the plaintiff as a son to her husband, and the respondent succeeded as the Dharmakarta of the Choultry. The respondent became a major in October 1918, and he instituted the present suits in 1920 and 1921, as Dharmakarta of the Choultry. The definition of "estate" for the purposes of the Madras Estates Land Act 1908 (Madras Act 1 of 1908) is to be found in S. 3 of the Act, which, so far as material, provides as follows: "3. In this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context: (2) "Estate" means: (a) any permanently settled estate or temporarily settled zamindari; (b) any portion of such permanently settled estate or temporarily settled zamindari which is separately registered in the office of the Collector; (d) any village of which the land revenue alone has been granted in inam to a person not owning the kudivaram thereof provided that the grant has been made, confirmed or recognized by the British Government, or any separated part of such village; (e) any portion consisting of one or more villages of any of the estates specified above in Cls. (a), (b) and (c) which is held on a permanent under- tenure."