text stringlengths 5 5.67k |
|---|
It is not possible to say what record was with Somaraju when he described the said land by its survey numbers in the said Schedule and whether he had at that time the old or the ,new record of the revised survey numbers. Ratio |
It is possible that if the revised record was not before him at that time a mistake in describing the land by its survey numbers might occur and that would explain the discrepancy between the total measurement mentioned in the body of the will and that in the Schedule. Ratio |
In face, however, of the expressly declared intention in the body of the will that he was disposing of the entire property including the land measuring 60 acres 9 cents it is impossible to hold that he desired to hold back a portion thereof from his mother and intended to leave it intestate. Ratio |
We do not therefore find any justification for interfering with the conclusion of the trial Court and the High Court that Somaraju disposed of the entire property. Ratio |
Consequently we must reject Mr. Desai 's contention. Ratio |
The appeal is dismissed with costs. RPC |
V.P.S. Appeal dismissed. RPC |
Appeals Nos. 54 to 65, 67 and 69 to 71 of 1963. FAC |
Appeals from the judgment and decree dated January 10, 1956 of the Madras High Court in Appeal Suit Nos. 223 and 224 of 1951, and 264 to 273, 275 and 277 to 279 of 1952. FAC |
R. Kesava Iyengar, R. Thiagarajan and R. Ganapathy Iyer, for the appellants (in all the appeals). FAC |
Bishan Narain and O. P. Malhotra, for respondent No. 1 (in C.A. Nos. 54 and 55 of 1963). FAC |
M. R. K. Pillai, for respondent No. 2 (in C.A. No. 55 of 1963) and for the respondents (in C.As.56 to 65, 67 to 71 of 1963). FAC |
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. FAC |
These appeals are brought against the judgment and decree in A.S. nos.223 and 224 of 1951, 264 to 273 of 1952, 275 of 1952 and 277 to 279 of 1952 of the Madras High Court dated January _10, 1956 affirming the judgment and decree in O.S. nos.75, 77 to 81 of 1949 and 19 to 22, 24 to 26, 28 & 30 to 31 of 1950 of the Subor... |
The appellant instituted the above mentioned suits for re covery of possession from the respective defendants of the disputed lands and for payment of damages at the rate of Rs. 501per annum per acre. FAC |
The case of the appellant was that the disputed lands which were purchased by him by a sale deed dated November 11, 1948 (exhibit A 145) are situated in Orathur Padugai which is attached to Pannimangalam, one of the villages comprised in what is known as the "Tanjore Palace Estate", that 756 the said lands are not situ... |
The appellant also claimed that the defendants were liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 501 per, annum per acre in respect of the lands in their unlawful occupation. FAC |
The defence in all the suits was substantially the same. FAC |
it was contended by the defendants that the disputed lands are situated in an estate within the meaning of section 3 (2) (d) of the Act, that the lands are 'ryoti lands ' in which they have permanent right of occupancy and that they are not "private lands" as alleged by the appellant and the civil court had therefore n... |
By his two judgments dated October ')1, 1950 and February 2, 1951, the Subordinate Judge, Tanjore dismissed the suits, holding that the lands were situated in an estate and were 'ryoti lands ' in which the defendants were entitled to occupancy rights. FAC |
The appellant took the matter in appeal to the Madras High Court which affirmed the decision of the trial court and dismissed all the appeals. FAC |
The two principal questions which are presented for deter mination in these appeals are : (1) whether the suit lands are located in an estate within the meaning of section 3 (2) (d) of the Act, and (2 ' ) if the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, whether the suit lands are 'private lands ' or 'ryoti la... |
Section 3 (2) (d) of the Act, as originally enacted states "3.In this Act unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context (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 made, confir... |
Explanation (1): Where an inam village is resumed by the Government,it shall cease to be an estate; but, if any village so resumed is subsequently regranted by the Government as an main, it shall, from the date of such re grant be regarded as an estate. STA |
Explanation (2): Where a portion of an inam village is resumed by the Government, such portion shall cease to be part of the estate, but the rest of the village shall be deemed to be an inam village for the purposes of this sub clause. STA |
If the portion so resumed or any part thereof is subsequently regranted by the Government as an inam, such portion or part shall, from the date of such re grant be regarded as forming part of the inam village for the purposes of this sub clause. STA |
" By section 2 of the Madras Act 11 of 1945 section 3 of the Act was further amended as follows "Section 2 : (1) In sub clause (d) of clause (2) of section 3 of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) Explanations (1) and (2) shall be renumbered as Explanations (2) and (3) respective... |
" The history of what is known as the "Tanjore Palace Estate" is well known and will be found in various reported decisions of the Judicial Committee and of the Madras High Court : (See Jijoyiamba Bayi Saiba vs Kamakshi Bayi Saiba(l), Sundaram Ayyar vs Ramachandra Ayyar(2), Maharaja of Kolhapur vs Sundaram Iyer (3) and... |
In 1799, Serfoji, the then Raja of Tanjore, surrendered his territory into the hands of the East India Company, but he was allowed to retain possession of certain villages and lands which constituted his private property. Ratio |
When his son the last Raja died in 1855 without leaving male issue, the East India Company took possession of all his properties including his private property. Ratio |
Thereupon the senior widow, Kamachee Boye Sababa filed a Bill on the Enquiry Side of the Supreme Court of Madras, and obtained a decree that the seizure of the private properties was wrong. Ratio |
On appeal by the Secretary of State in Council of India, the Privy Council reversed the decree, and ordered the dismissal of the Bill. Ratio |
Thereafter, a memorial was submitted to the Queen and in 1862 the Government of India which had succeeded the East India Company "sanctioned the relinquishment of the whole of the landed property of the Tanjore Raj in favour of the heirs of the late Raja". Ratio |
Under instructions from the Government of India, the Government of Madras, on August 21, 1862, passed an order the material part of which is as follows : "In Col. Durand 's letter above recorded the Government of India have furnished their instructions with reference to the disposal of the landed property of the Tanjor... |
Their decision is to the effect, that 'since it is doubtful whether the lands in question can be legally dealt with as State property, and since the plea in equity and policy, for treating them as the private property of the Raja is so strong that it commands the unanimous support of the members of the Madras Governmen... |
The Tan ore Palace Estate came into being as a result of this grant. Ratio |
The question in these appeals is whether the property invol ved in the suits being a part of the Tanjore Palace Estate can be considered to be an "estate" within the meaning of the term in the Act. Ratio |
It was conceded by the Counsel for the appellant that if it was part of an inam it would be an ,estate ' within the meaning of that Act. Ratio |
It was, however, contended that the manner in which the property reverted to the widows of the Raja in 1862 after an act of State did not show that the estate was freshly granted but was restored to the widows who enjoyed both the warams, in the same way as the warams were enjoyed before. Ratio |
To put it differently, the argument was that the effect of restoration or re linquishment was only the undoing of the wrong and therefore if the villages were the private properties of the Raja at the time of the seizure then the same character is maintained when they were handed back to his widow. Ratio |
The contention was that what actually happened in 1862 was the restoration of the status quo ante rather than a fresh grant by the British Government. ARG |
The argument is not a new one but has been raised before and rejected in a number of authorities. Ratio |
In Jijoyiama Bayi Saiba vs Kamakshi Bayi Saiba(1) it was held by the Madras High Court that the Government Order, 1862 was a grant of grace and favour to persons who had forfeited all claims to the personal properties of the Rajah by the act of State and was not a revival of any antecedent rights which they might have ... |
A similar opinion of the grant was expressed in a Full Bench case of the Madras High Court in Sundaram Ayyar vs Ramachandra Ayyar(2) But in Maharaja of Kolhapur vs Sundaram Iyer(3), Spencer, O.C.J., appeared to doubt the decision of Scotland, C.J., in Jijoyiamba Bayi Saiba vs Kamakshi Bayi Saiba(l) that there was a gra... |
A similar view was taken in Sundaram vs Deva Sankara(4), but these cases have been subsequently explained or not accepted on this point. Ratio |
In T.R. Bhavani Shankar Joshi vs Somasundra Moopanar(1), it was held by this Court that the act of State having made no distinction between the private and public properties of the Rajah the private properties were lost by the Act of State leaving no right outstanding in the existing claimants. PRE |
The Government Order, 1862 was therefore a fresh grant due to the bounty of the Government and not because of any antecedent rights in the grantees. Ratio |
It was pointed out that the words "relinquished" or "restored" in the Government Order did not have the legal effect of reviving any such right because no rights survived the act of State. ARG |
The root of title of the grantees was the Government Order of l862 and it was therefore held that the restoration amounted to a grant in inam by the British Government within the meaning of the Act. ARG |
But the question whether with regard to any particular area what was granted in inam is a whole village or less than a whole village is a question that has to be decided with reference to the facts of each particular case. Ratio |
The question therefore arises whether the area in question, viz., Orathur Padugai, constitutes a whole village and therefore an estate within the meaning of section 3 (2) (d) of the Act. ARG |
It was contended for the appellant that the suit lands were not comprised in a whole inam village. ARG |
The contention was rejected by both the lower courts which concurrently held that the lands were located in Orathur Padugai, a whole village by itself or a named village and therefore an estate within the meaning of the Act. Ratio |
It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the finding of the lower courts is vitiated in law because it is based on no evidence. ARG |
In our opinion, there is no justification for this argument. Ratio |
On behalf of the respondents reference was made to exhibit A 64, Pannimangalam Vattam Jamabandhi Account individual war, Fasli 1296, which shows in column No. 3 Orathur Padugai as a village . Ratio |
Similarly, in exhibit A 78(a), Cess account for Pannimangalam Vattam and exhibit A 79, the Village war Jamabandhi Account Fasli 1309 Orathur Padugai village is shown as a whole village. Ratio |
Exhibit A 82, Village war Jamabandhi Individual War, Fasli , Jamabandhi Ghoshpara for the village, Fasli 1311 and Exs.A 153 to A 157 all mention Orathur Padugai as a village. Ratio |
All the leases, lease auctions and receipts given for payment of rent speak of Orathur Padugai as a separate village. Ratio |
Even the sale deeds, Exs.B 6, B 31, B 32 and B 33 contain a recital of Orathur Padugai as a separate village. Ratio |
It is manifest therefore that there is sufficient material to show that at least since 1830 onwards Orathur Padugai is a whole village. Ratio |
On behalf of the appellant reference was made (1) 761 to exhibit A 128 and exhibit A 129 dated April 6, 1800 and July 5, 1800. Ratio |
Exhibit A 128 is a letter from the President, Tanjore to the Secretary to the Government of Madras in which there is a reference to Pannimungalam. Ratio |
It is stated therein 'that "the fields of Pannymungalam to the westward of Tanjore which from time immemorial have been reserved for the pasture of the circar cow do remain in the Raja 's possession. Ratio |
There is neither village nor cultivation on these lands". Ratio |
In answer to this letter there is a communication from the Chief Secretary to the Government to the Resident, Tanjore, exhibit A 129. Ratio |
In para 5 of this letter it is stated: "The fields of Pucanymangalam containing neither village nor cultivation shall remain in the hands of Rajah for the pasturage of His Excellency 's cows. Ratio |
" Much reliance was placed by Counsel for the appellant on these two documents, but the High Court has rightly pointed out that the identity of the lands referred to in Exs. A 128 and A 129 is doubtful. ARG |
The lands in suit ate situated at least 30 miles south east of Tanjore town in Mannaroudi taluk but in Exs.A 128 and A 129 the lands are described as westward of Tanjore. Ratio |
That there was Orathur village in existence even as early as 1830 is clear from exhibit A 151 because in describing certain boundaries of another village it is mentioned as to the north of assessed Orathur village nadappu karai (bund pathway). Ratio |
Exhibit A 4 of 1868 is a Debit and Credit Balance account relating to Orathur Padugai attached to Mukasa Pannimangalam Thattimal. Ratio |
It is clear from this Exhibit that the entire village except the waste land was assessed. Ratio |
From Exhibit A 5 dated September 4, 1870, it appears that the punja lands in Orathur village were taken on lease from the Collector of Tanjore who was the receiver and manager of the estate of the Rajah of Tanjore for a period of 5 years on payment of a total sum of Rs. 122/9/3. Ratio |
Exhibits A 7, A 8, A 12 to A 16 and A 18 are either Adaiyolai muchilikas or lease deeds for leasing the lands in Orathur padugai village for a term ranted by the Collector of Tanjore. Ratio |
In all these documents the description is that the lands are situated in Orathur Padugai in Mokhasa Pannymangalam Thattimal. Ratio |
The documents range between the years 1870 to 1875. Ratio |
In Ex.A 63 which is the individual war settlement register for Pannymangalam vattam for Fasli 1296 against column 6 it is stated that the income in the matter of the amani cultivation of sugarcane, etc., on 95 kullis is Rs. 4 and it is in Orathur padugai village, Pannymangalam vattam. Ratio |
Exhibit A 61 is the debit and credit balance account of Orathur padugai for Fasli 1294. Ratio |
Similarly, in exhibit A 64, the individual war settlement register for Pannimangalam vattam, column 3 relating to the village of Orathur states that the Orathur padugai is a village and the vattam is Pannimangalam. Ratio |
There are similar des 762 criptions of Orathur as a village in exhibit A 65 which is the settlement register for Pannimangalam vattam for Fasli 1297. Ratio |
Exhibit A 80 contains a similar description of Orathur village in Pannimangalam vattam. Ratio |
Exhibits A 153 to A 155 and A 157 are all lease deeds between the years from 1901 to 1906 relating to lease of lands in Orathur padugai. Ratio |
It is manifest that there is sufficient evidence to show that from 1868 right up to 1907 Orathur padugai was considered as a separate village. Ratio |
It was contended for the respondents that even after the passing of the Act Orathur padugai was treated as a separate village. ARG |
Reference was made in this connection to a number of documents, Exs.A 158, A 105, A 159, A 106, A 116, A 161, B 17,A 117 to A 120, B 18, A 12 1, A 1 62 and A 1 63. Ratio |
In our opinion, the finding of the lower courts that Orathur padugai is a whole village and therefore constitutes an 'estate ' within the meaning of the Act is supported by proper evidence and Counsel for the appellant is unable to make good his argument that the finding of the lower courts is in any way defective in l... |
We proceed to consider the next question arising in this case, viz., whether the suit lands are 'private lands ' within the meaning of section 3 ( 1 0) (b) of the Act which reads as follows : "3.In this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context . . . . .(10) 'Private land ' (b) in the case of a... |
" Section 3(16) of the Act defines 'Ryoti land ' as follows : "Ryoti land ' means cultivable land in an estate other than private land but does not include (a) beds and bunds of tanks and of supply, drainage, surplus or irrigation channels; (b) threshing floor, cattle stands, village sites, and other lands situated in ... |
" Section 185 of the Act enacts a presumption that land in inam village is not private land and reads as follows : "185.When in any suit or proceeding it becomes necessary to determine whether any land is the landholder 's private land, regard shall be had (1) to local custom, (2) in the case of an estate within the me... |
" Section 6 is to the following effect "6.(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every ryot now in possession or who shall hereafter be admitted by a landholder to possession of ryoti land situated in the estate of such landholder shall have a permanent right of occupancy in his holding. STA |
Explanation (1).For the purposes of this subsection, the expression 'every ryo t now in possession ' shall include every person who, having held land as a ryot continues in possession of such land at the commencement of this Act. STA |
The Subordinate Judge and the High Court have concurrently come to the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence, that the lands in suit are not private lands but ryoti lands. Ratio |
On behalf of the appellant Mr. Kesava Iyengar conceded that onus is on the appellant to show that the lands are 'private lands ' within the meaning of the Act ', but the argument was stressed that the lower courts have failed to take into account certain important documents filed on behalf of the appellant, viz., A 128... |
In our opinion, there is no warrant for the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant. Ratio |
As regards Exs A 128 and A 129 it is apparent that apart from the question as to the identity of the land, they relate to a period previous to the grant of 1862 which alone constitutes the root of title of the grantees and there is no question of restoration or revival of any anterior right. Ratio |
The same reasoning applies to the Paimash account dated August 25, which 765 cannot, therefore, be held to be of much relevance in this connection. Ratio |
Reliance was placed on behalf of the appellant on exhibit A 134, the Land Register for Pannimangalam which shows that in Orathur Thattimal Padugai which consists of Punjais (dry lands) and are rain fed, the land holder (the Tanjore Palace Estate) owns both the warams (Iruwaram in vernacular). Ratio |
It was argued for the appellant that the expression 'Iruwaram ' means that the land was owned as Pannai or private lands. Ratio |
Reference was made to the record of rights and Irrigation Memoir dated January 13, 1935, exhibit B 8 which shows that the lands are lruwaram and there are no wet lands. Ratio |
But the use of the expression "Iruwaram" in these documents is not decisive of the question whether the land is private land of the appellant or not. Ratio |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.