UPADRASHTA VENKATA SASTRULU Vs. DIVI SITARAMUDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are consolidated appeals against a judgment delivered by the High Court of Judicature at Madras on the 18th March, 1914, and decrees made in pursuance thereof in eleven suits. The High Court by its judgment affirmed a judgment of the District Judge of Kistna whereby he set aside the decision of the Munsif of Gudivada and directed the return of the plaints in all the suits for presentation in the Revenue Court.

(2.) The suits out of which those appeals arose were suits for ejectment in respect of different parts of the inam village of Billapadu in the Gudivada sub-district of the Kistna district. The appellant, who was the plaintiff in all the suits, is the inamdar of the village, holding under a grant made to his ancestor in or about the year 1748, and since confirmed and recognised by the British Government. The defendants were persons who at various dates in the year 1907 had been let into possession by the plaintiff under tenancy agreements, expiring in 1908. Each of these agreements contained a declaration by the tenant to the effect that except the right of cultivating the land for a year under the agreement he had no other right whatever thereto, and accordingly that he agreed to the landlord (the plaintiff) taking possession of the land a. the end of the year of tenancy without any relinquishment by the tenant. The tenancies having expired and these suits having been brought for possession, the defendants pleaded that they were ryots having permanent zeroyati rights, and that as the inam village was an " estate " governed by the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, the Civil Courts had no jurisdiction to try the suits. The Munsif overruled this plea and granted decrees in favour of the plaintiff; but the District Judge, holding that the property was an " estate " under the Act of 1908, set aside the Munsif s decision and directed the plaints to be returned. This decision was affirmed by the High Court, and thereupon this appeal was brought.

(3.) The decision on the appeal must turn on the question whether the property is or is not an "estate" within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 ; and for the purpose of determining this question reference must be made to the definition of the term " estate " contained in Section 3 of the Act. That definition, so far as it is applicable here, is as follows :- In this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the subject or ontext...(2) Estate means...(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 confirmed or recognised by the British Government, or any separated part of such village.