PETITIONER: STATE OF MADRAS Vs. RESPONDENT: P. GOVINDARAJULU NAIDU DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/09/1965 BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. MUDHOLKAR, J.R. BACHAWAT, R.S. CITATION: 1966 AIR 969 1966 SCR (1) 915 ACT: Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (26 of 1948), s. 2(15)-Under-tenure and Zamin estate- Difference between, HEADNOTE: In 1796 the suit village was granted to the person occupying the office of Nattuvar conferring on him the, mirasi of the village permanently, subject to his paying all just dues. At the time of making the permanent settlement in the District in which the village was situate, it was decided by the Government to abolish the office of Nattuwar but to maintain the shrotiems, that is, the grants made to Nattuvar, and realise the dues through the instrumentality of the Zamindar. The policy was implemented by including the shrotiem in the Tirumazhy zamindari and by transferring the Government's ultimate reversionary rights to the Zamindar. The result was that the shrotriem tenure in the hands of the Nature continued after the permanent settlement as it existed prior to it, except that the tenure under the Government became an under-tenure under the zamindar, as the zamindar intervened between the Government and the Nattuvar. In 1950, the appellant State notified the shrotriem village as a zamin estate under s. 3 of the Madras Estates (Abolition and conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. The respondent who was in possession and enjoyment of the village filed a suit for a declaration that the notification was illegal and void. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the High Court on appeal, held that the notification was illegal and void, because, the village was not a zamin village, but a whole inam village. In appeal to this Court, it was contended that as the village was included in the assets of the zamindari at the time of permanent settlement, it was part of zamindari. HELD : As the village was held under a permanent under- tenure, it fell under the definition in s. 3 (2) (e) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, and was, therefore, an estate thereunder and hence it was an undertenure estate under s. 2(3) of the Abolition Act. As the "under tenure" estate is excluded from the definition of "zamin estate", the notification by the Government on the basis that it is a zamin estate was void. [928 A-B] Though a village is physically a part of a zamindari, if it is held on a permanent under-tenure. it is included in the definition of an estate under s. 3(2)(e) of the Madras Estates Land Act. To constitute an under-tenure it is not material whether the grant was a pre-settlement or post- settlement one, but what is important is : in whom the reversionary interest rests. The reversionary interest may rest in the proprietor of the zamindari either because at the time of permanent settlement the inam was included in the assets of the zamindari or because he himself was the grantor of a permanent under-tenure. 'Me showing of shrotriem village as village of zamindar is not decisive in the context of the Act. The distinction between zamin and under-tenure is relevant for the purpose of compensation. [919 B, F-G; 920 A: 925 D] 916 Gopisetti Veeraswami v. Sagiraju Seetharama Kanatayya, (1926) 51 M.L.J. 394 and Narayanaswami Bahudur v. Boda thammayya, 1930 M.W.N. 945, referred to. JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 446 of
1963.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated September 9, 1958
of the Madras High Court in Appeal Suit No. 85 of 1956.
A. Ranganadham Chetty and A. V. Rangam, for the appellant.
T.V.R. Tatachari, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Subba Rao, J. This appeal by certificate raises the question
whether the village of Mothirambedu is a zamindari estate
under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into
Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Madras Act XXVI of 1948), hereinafter
called the Act.
The facts may be briefly stated. Mothirambedu village is
one of the shrotriem villages in the Chingleput district in
the State of Madras. The respondent purchased the same from
one P. Anathapadmanabacharlu under a sale deed dated July
10, 1946, for a sum of Rs. 26,000/-, and was in possession
and enjoyment thereof. On December 12, 1950, the Government
of Madras issued a notification under s. 3 of the Act
taking over the said village as a zamindari estate. The
Government took possession of the same on January 3, 1951.
On March 15, 1954, the respondent filed O.S. No. 22 of 1954
in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Chingleput, against
the State of Madras for a declaration that the said
notification of his village as zamindari estate under the
said Act was illegal and void. In the plaint he claimed
that the said village was not an “estate” within the meaning
of the Madras Estates Land Act and, therefore, it did not
vest in the State. But that plea was subsequently given up
and nothing need be said in that regard. The State filed a
written-statement asserting that the said village formed
part of Tirumazhy Zamindari, that it was separately
registered in the office of the Collector and that,
therefore, it was a zamin estate within the meaning of the
said Act.
The learned Subordinate Judge, Chingelput, held that the
suit village was a zamin estate and that, therefore, the
said notification was legal and binding on the respondent.
On appeal, the High Court of Judicature at Madras held that
it was not proved that the said village was a zamin village,
but it was a whole
917
inam village. On that finding, it granted the plaintiff a
declaration that the notification of the said village as a
zamin estate under the Act was illegal and void, as the said
village was a whole inam village. Hence the appeal.
Learned counsel for the State contended that the said
village was a, included in the assets of the zainindari at
the time of the permanent settlement, that it continued to
be, a part of the said estate till it was abolished under
the Act.
Mr. T. V. R. Tatachary, learned counsel for the respondent,
on the other hand, argued that the said village, was granted
as a shrotriement before the permanent settlement to a
person holding the office of a Nattuvar, that though the
said village was included in the assets of the zamindari,
the pre-existing tenure was not disturbed, and that the
grantee and his successors continued to hold the village as
an under-tenure from the zamindar , as by reason of the
permanent settlement the zamindar became an intermediary.
In short, his contention was that the said village was an
under-tenure estate falling under s. 3(2) (e) of the Madras
Estates Land Act and that in any view, it had not been
established that it was is a zamin village.
Before we advert to the facts of the case it will be
convenient to notice some of the aspects of law relevant to
the said facts.
The Madras Estates Land Act, 1908
Section 3. (2) “Estate” means-
(a) any permanently settled estate or
temporarily settled zamindari;
(b) any portion of such permanently settled
estate or temporarily settled zaminadri which
is separately registered in the office of the
Collector;
(c) . . . . . . . . .
(d) (As it stood before the Amending Act
XVIII of 1936)
any village of which the land revenue alone
has been -ranted in inam to a person not
owning the kudiwaram thereof, provided that
the grant has been made, confirmed or
recognized by the British Government or any
separated part of a village.
918
(After the Amending Act XVIII of 1936. any
inam village of which the grant has been made,
confirmed or recognized by the British
Government, notwithstanding that subsequent to
the grant, the village has been partitioned
among the grantees or the Successors in title
of the grantee or grantees.
(e) any portion consisting of one or more
villages of any of the estates specified in
clauses (a), (b) and (c) which is held on a
permanent undertenure.
The Act
Section 2. (3) “estate” means a zamindari or an undertenure
or an inam estate.
(7) “inam estate” means an estate within the
meaning of section 3, clause (2)(d), of the
Estates Land Act, but does not include
an inam
village which became an estate by virtue of
the Madras Estates Land (Third Amendment) Act,
1936.
(15) “under tenure estate” means an estate
within the meaning, of section 3, clause
(2)(e) of the Estates Land Act.
(16) “zamindari estate” means–
(i) an estate within the meaning of section
3, clause 2(a), of the Estates Land Act, after
excluding therefrom every portion which is
itself an estate under section 3, clause 2(b)
or 2(e), of that Act; or
(ii) an estate within the meaning of section
3, clause 2(b) or 2(c), of the Estates Land
Act’ after excluding therefrom every portion
which is itself an estate under section 3,
clause 2(e), of that Act.
The aforesaid provisions may be summarized thus: The Madras
Estates Land Act recognizes for the purpose of that Act 5
categories of estates. The Act grouped the said 5 estates
under three categories, namely, zamin, under-tenure and inam
estates. The estates defined in cls. (a), (b) and (c) of s.
3 (2) of the Madras Estates Land Act, excluding therefrom in
under-tenure estate,
919
are classified as zamin estates. An estate falling under
the definition in s. 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act,
excluding therefrom an inam estate which became an estate
under the Madras Estates (Third Amendment) Act, 1936, is
described as an inam estate under the Act. An estate under
the definition of s. 3(2)(e) of the Estates Land Act is
brought under the definition of the “under-tenure estate”
under the Act. It will be noticed at this stage that though
a village is physically a part of a zamindari if it is held
on a permanent under-tenure, it is excluded from the
definition of a zamin estate but included under the
definition of an “under-tenure estate”. The result of this
classification is, an inam village held under a permanent
under-tenure is not a zamin estate. A village can be held
under a permanent undertenure whether that village was the
subject-matter of a pre-settlement grant or a post-
settlement grant. To illustrate : take a village which was
granted permanently to an inamdar before 1802 by the British
Government. At the time of the permanent settlement the
said village was included in the permanently settled estate.
The effect of that was that the inamdar who was holding the
village under the Government continued to hold the same
under the proprietor. Take another illustration: after the
permanent settlement the proprietor made a permanent grant
of the whole inani village to an inamdar. The inamdar held
the village under the zamindar. In either case the village
was held under the proprietor of the permanently settled
estate. The proprietor, who is liable to pay pish kush to
the Government, is the tenure-holder. H.- is the
intermediary between the inamdar and the Government; that is
why the inamdar is described as under-tenure holder. It is,
therefore, clear that to constitute an under-tenure it is
not material whether the grant was a pre-,settlement or a
post-settlement one, but what is important is, in whom the
reversionary interest rests. That reversionary interest may
rest in the proprietor either because at the permanent
settlement the inam was included in the assets of the
zamindari or because he himself was the grantor of a
permanent under-tenure. This aspect of the law was
considered in two decisions of the Madras High Court. Where
a pre-settlement Mokhasa village was included in the assets
of the zamindari it was held that the village was held under
a permanent under-tenure within the meaning of S. 3 (2) (e)
of the Madras Estates Land Act : see Gopisetti Veeraswami v.
Sagiraju Seetharama Kantayya(1), and Narayanaswami Bahadur
v. Boda Thammavva (2) . This legal position will be material
when we consider the documents filed in this case.
(1) (1926) 51 M. L. J. 394. (2) (1930) M. W. N. 945.
920
It may be mentioned that the distinction between “zamin
estate”, “inam estate” and “under-tenure estate” made under
the Act is relevant, inter alia, for the purpose of payment
of compensation. The basis on which compensation payable in
respect of an inam estate is to be calculated would yield a
larger measure of compensation than that in respect of a
zamin estate. In regard to an under-tenure estate, if the
under-tenure was created prior to the permanent settlement,
the compensation payable would be ,on the basis adopted for
zamin estate with certain deductions; if .it was created
subsequent to the permanent settlement, the compensation
would be on the basis adopted for a zamin estate. In the
present case, as the inam was created prior to the permanent
settlement, if the contention of the respondent was correct,
be would get a higher compensation. That is the reason for
this dispute. (See ss. 27, 28, 3 1, 32, 35, 36 and 37 of the
Act).
It will also be useful to know, as we said for appreciating
the ,evidence, who is a Nattuvar. Nattuvar or Natwar is
described in the Manual of Chingleput District thus, at p.
244:
” The first and highest officer was the
“Natwar” or headman of a Nadu, or circle of
villages, the cultivation of which he
supervised on the part of the Govern-
ment.These officers were possessed of
considerable privileges, and were mean of
great dignity and reputed wealth. They appear
to have been lost sight of after the territory
was made over to the British. The Nabob
recognised or ignored them, deprived them of
their offices, or restored to the
m their
privileges, as they resisted or fell in with
his exactions, or as his rapacity was
sharpened by the urgency of his necessities.
Such a system had demoralized what was really
a very useful body of men, who were, moreover,
eager to be relieved from the consequences of
the ascendancy of the dubashes, which had
reduced them to the condition of ordinary
ryots. Mr. Place took advantage of the
disposition they now showed to return to the
discharge of their duties, to which he
therefore restored them under certain
guarantees for their good behaviour.”
“The Natwars” were a very ancient body of
officials.”
It will be seen from the said extract that the office of
Nattuvar was an important one, that it possessed of
considerable privileges, that it fell into evil days during
the period of the Nawabs, and that during the British rule
Mr. Place, the then Collector of Chingleput,
921
restored the office of Nattuvar under certain guarantees for
the good behaviour of the Nattuvars. It appears that at the
time of permanent settlement in the Chingleput District,
which was then discribed as a Jagir, the office of Nattuvar
was abolished but the Nattuvars were allowed to retain the
shrotriem villages granted to them. This will appear from
the appendices to the Report of the Estates Land Committee,
at pp. 228 to 253. Learned counsel for both the parties
agreed that the extracts given in the statement of case of
the respondent are correct. As the report is not available
to us, we cite the extracts from the said statement of case.
Paragaraph 66 of the said Appendices
“‘The permanent settlement of the land revenue
having rendered unnecessary, all the
Subordinate officers of revenue between the
Collectors and the Carnums, the general
instructions directed that those superfluous
offices including that of Nattuvar should be
abolished. The nature of the powers exercised
under the duties attached to that office
furnished abundant reason for annulling it;
but the individual persons now holding it have
claim to indulgence and it is our duty to
submit their pretensions to your
Lordship’s consideration…………….. They
have been considered to be honorable stations
and length of possession has annexed to them
the idea of property although the emoluments
of an office ought under ordinary circ
umstances
to cease with the discontinuance of the office
itself, yet it will be just under the stated
conideration, to grant a compensation in the
case of the Nattuwars adequate to the loss
sustained by the immediate
incumbents…………. We recommend that your
Lordship in Council should confer on them, as
an act of indulgence, the possession of their
Shrotriem lands tenable under a Purnwanah of
Government.”
Paragraph 67: Although the Nauttuwars who
were appointed under the authority of
Government during Mr. Place’s management of
the Jagheer cannot plead length of service, we
yet recommend that they might be included in
this arrangement in consideration of the
assistance rendered by them in the lease of
the lands at that period of time,
Paragraph 74 : The Shrotriem lands in general
,ire so connected with the Government lands
that it
922
been deemed expedient to provide for the
collection of the shrotriem rent through the
channel of the proprietor of the estate in
which the shrotriem lands are situated and to
provide through the same channel for the
collection of the commuted marahs. The
Zamindars will, therefore, be entitled
(according to usage) subject always to
prosecution for the abuse of it to call in the
aid of the inhabitants of the shrotriem lands
for purposes for which it has been customary
to render such assistance.
The following extracts from the Minutes of Consultation in
the Revenue Department dated April 13, 1802, may be useful:
“The subject of the Nauttawars is familiar- to
the Board. The nature of the office and its
connection with the administration of the
Revenue has been discussed at length on the
records of the Government. A reference to
this discussion must demonstrate that the
office can no longer be useful. The superior
advantages which the Nauttawars have acquired
by the enjoyment of the high warum and of
mauniams, and the ground of interference which
they are calculated to afford with the rights
of the proprietor, render it expedient that
the motives of such an influence should be
removed together with the office. The Board,
therefore, authorise the abolition
of the
office of Nauttawar and the resumption of the
emoluments attached to the performance of the
duties of that office.
At the period, however, of conferring such
extensive benefit on the body of people as
they will receive from the establishment of a
system of permanent revenue and of judicature,
the Board are disposed favourably to consider
the claims of the present incumbents in the
office of Nauttawar. They concur with the
Commission it will be just, under the stated
circumstances, to continue to the Nauttawars
their Sbrotriem lands; because they have been
considered to be honourable stations and
length of possession has annexed to them idea
of property”
It will be seen from the said extracts that the Commission
appointed to go into the question of the abolition of the
office of Nattavaras recommended that the office should be
abolished but the Government should confer on the incumbents
the posses-
923
sion of their shrotriem lands under a purvana. The Revenue
Board accepted the recommendation of the Commission; it
agreed to allow the Nattuvars to continue to have possession
of their shrotriem lands. It is, therefore, clear that the
shrotriem lands were given permanently to Nattuvars by the
State, that at the time of permanent settlement the tenure
was continued and that their inclusion in the estate only
effected a transfer of the reversionary interest from the
State to the Proprietor.
With this back-round let us look at the documents filed in
the case. The earliest document on record is Ex. 7, the
certified copy of cowle -ranted by Mr. Lionel Place,
Collector of Honorable Company’s Jageer to Rangasami Mudali
dated December 10, 1796. As it is an important document, we
shall-read it
“Cowle granted by Lionel Place Esq., Collector
of the Honorable Company’s Jagheer to
Rangaswamy Moodaly.
Whereas the villages of Moderambedu and Mada-
vapoondy in the district of Poonamalle from
neglect and want of mirasdars being in a
desolate and uncultivated state producing,
nothing to the circar. Rangaswamy Mudaly
Nautawar of the said district having agreed,
provided the meerassee of the said villages be
conferred on him, to clear and tender them
productive.
I do therefore hereby confer on Rangaswamy
Mudaly and his heirs the meerassee of the said
villages, to continue in the enjoyment of the
same, so long as they carry on t proper
cultivation, pay all just dues, and are
obedient to the circar.
Dated this 10th day of December in the year
one thousand seven hundred and ninetysix.
(signed) Lional Place
Collector.”
The genuineness of this document is not in question. It was
filed by consent. This document discloses that Rangaswamy
Mudali was a Nattuvar in the district of Poonamalle. As the
village of Mothirambedu, with which we are now concerned,
was in a “desolate and uncultivated state” for want of
mirasdar, the mirasi of the said village was granted
permanently to Rangaswami Mudali and his heirs. In Wilson’s
Glossary, the following meaning to the Tamil expression
“mirasi” is given
924
“Inheritance, inherited property or right;
the term is used, especially in the south of
India, to signify lands held by absolute
hereditary proprietorship under one of three
contingencies.”
According to Wilson, mirasdar means the holder of hereditary
lands or office in a village. It is, therefore, Clear that
under this document the said village of Mothirambedu was
given to Rangaswami Mudali, who was a village officer, in
absolute hereditary proprietorship. The village was given
tinder a permanent hereditary grant, subject to, inter alia,
the grantee paying all just dues to the Government. This
document is couched in clear and unambiguous terms and under
it the permanent inam was granted to Rangaswamy Mudali
subject to his payment of dues.
Exhibit B. 2 is described as “Trimishy Zamindari Statement”
in regard to waste and unproductive lands. It is not dated.
It relates to Mothirambedu village and another village.
Under the heading “remarks”, the following statements are
found
“Watered by Trimishy tank, New Strotriem to
Nautyavalappa Mooduly proposed to be resumed
as per Order of the Board, dated 2nd October
1800. Another village Alatoor is included
with these two and the rent is paid on the
whole and the villages are watered by the
Trinilshy lank. Rented for 10 years to Naut
Rangaswamy Moodaly 5 of which are expired.
The rent raised from 10 pagodas the present
Fasli to 25 Pagodas the last year by t
he lease.
Watered by the Trimashe tank.”
Learned counsel or the, State contends that this document
shows that Ex. A-7 was not given effect to and that
Rangaswamy Mudali was only a lessee for 10 years. As we
have stated earlier, this statement does not bear any (late,
though the internal evidence discloses that it came into
existence after October 2, 1800. This is not signed by any
officer. We do not know on what material the said
observations were made and on what occasion this document
was prepared and by whom and whether this was acted upon at
the time of permanent settlement. We cannot draw any
presumption on an unsigned statement which does not even
bear a date. This must, therefore, be ignored.
Exhibit B-1 is thee copy of the Kabuliat executed by Venkiah
the proprietor of tile zamindari of Tirumishi it the time of
permanent settlement of the estate in his favour. The
sannad is
925
not produced. It shows that the zamindari consisted of 57
purchased villages and 8 Shrotriem villages but the names of
the Shrotriem villages are not given. This document ex
facie does not show that Mothirambedu was one of the
villages that were the subject-matter of permanent
settlement. The learned counsel for the State relied upon
the Chingleput Manual wherein a statement showing the
particulars of several tenures other than ryotwari in the
District of Chingleput is given. Dealing with Saidapet
Taluk under the heading “Zamindaries”, Mothirambedu village
is mentioned; and under the heading “inam villages”, en-
franchised or unenfranchised, the said village is not shown.
From his it is contended that this village was a part of the
zamindari and that it must have been one of the strotriem
villages shown as included in the zamindari of Tirumishi in
the Kabuliat executed by Venkiah. Be that as it may, the
fact that Shrotriem villages have been shown as villages of
the zamindari is not decisive in the context of the Act, as
Permanent under-tenure villages, as expained earlier, have
been specifically excluded from the definition of zamin
estate.
Exhibit B-3 does not bear any date. It contains the names
of the zamindars in the Madras Presidency. We do not know
for what purpose this document was prepared. Under the
heading “names of estates”, Mothirambedu is given. The name
of P. Ananthapadmanabhan is shown under the heading “Name of
the present holder”. Apart from the heading, the
expression “estate” is appropriate in the context of a
zamindari as well as a village held under a permanent under-
tenure. The honorific title “zamindar” adopted by a
particular inamdar does not make him a zamindar and his land
does not cease to be an inam. It is either an inam or not
under the provisions of the Act.
Exhibits B-4 and B-5 are the extracts from the Inam Fair
Register of the year 1862 in respect of Mothirambedu
village. They deal with some minor inams of small extents.
It may be mentioned at this stage that these registers were
prepared in connection with the inam settlement. They deal
with pre-settlement inams only, which were not included in
the assets of the zamindari. Presumably these minor inams
in Mothirambedu village were pre-settlement inams not so
included and, therefore, they were the subject-matter of the
enquiry and were eventually confirmed. But it is said that
the fact that the minor inams were the subject-matter of the
settlement but the village itself was not settled thereunder
indicates that the village was a part of the zamindari.
But, as we have pointed out earlier, the village,
926
subject to the subsisting tenure, was included in the
zamindari and. therefore, there was no scope nor occasion
for its being the subject-matter of inam settlement.
Exhibit A-2 is the title-deed granted to Narasimhachariar
and 7 others by the Inam Commissioner, Madras, dated
November 24, 1869. The title deed was issued to
Narasimhachariar in respect of 2 acres and 39 cents of wet
land pursuant to orders made in the Inam Register. But the
said 2 acres and 39 cents of wet land is described as
situated in the Jari inam village of Mothirambedu taluk of
Saidapet District. According to Wilson’s Glossary, “Jari
inam” means “A grant of land or other endowment still in
force, not resumed”. This recital, therefore, support the
conclusion that the inam of the village of Mothirambedu
taluk was still subsisting, though the right of ultimate
reversion vested in the zamindar.
Exhibit B-6 is “B” Register of Sriperumbudur Taluk of
Chingleput District. It contains a list of the inam
villages. Mothirambedu minor inam is shown in the list as
it should be. Mothirambedu village has no place in that
list as it was included in the zamindari.
The respondent placed before the Court various sale deeds to
support his title to the said village. Under Ex. A-6, a
saledeed dated September 2, 1919, Haji Usman Sahib sold the
exclusive miras of Mothirambedu to Rangachariar. In the
sale deed Mothirambedu is described in different places as
Miras Mitta, zamin village, Mothirambedu zamin village and
Mothirambedu Ega Bhoga Miras zamin. “Ega Bhogam” means in
Tamil possession or tenure of village land by one person or
family without any co-sharer. No doubt the word “zamin” is
ordinarily used to denote the estate of a zamindar, that is
the proprietor under the permanent settlement. But the
expression ” zamindar” is also adopted by some of the
inamdars as an honorific term. A mere popular description
of an undertenure village as a zamin does not make it a
zamin estate under the Act, if it is not one in fact.
Indeed, the document shows that in some parts, for instance
in Schedule A, Mothirambedu has been described as Ega Bhoga
Miras Mothirambedu zamin village and in Schedule B,
Melmanambedu village is described as Shrotriem Melmanambedu
village, whereas in the preamble to the document
Mothirambedu is described as Miras of Mothirambedu, and
Melmanambedu, as Zamin Melmanambedu. This shows that the
character of the village has not been described
927
with any legal precision. What is more, the character of
this village was in dispute in a suit between the zamindar
and the tenants in the year 1921. That suit ultimately went
up to the High Court and a Division Bench of the Madras High
Court disposed of the appeal on November 23, 1927. The
judgment is marked as Ex. A-4. Therein the High Court
pointed out that the zamindar, who was the appellant, did
not produce the sannad nor did he file any old records
relating to the zamindari on the ground that they were not
available in the Collector’s office. The only evidence
adduced to support his contention was the fact that in
regard to the village fixed assessment was paid from the
year 1856 onwards, and that it was referred to in certain
Government registers as zamin village. The High Court
accepted the finding of the Subordinate Judge that it was
not a part of the zamindari. Except the certified copy of
the Kabuliat executed by Venkiah, the then zamindar, which
does not include this village and the unsigned statement
alleged to have been filed in the permanent settlement
proceedings, which is not proved no further material
evidence has been placed in the present proceedings. We do
not see any justification to take a different view from that
accepted by the High Court in the year 1927.
From the discussion of the aforesaid evidence, the following
facts emerge In 1796 Mr. Lionel Place, the then Collector of
the Honorable Company’s Jagheer, -ranted a cowle to Ranga-
swamy Mudali, who was occupying the office of a Nattuvar,
conferring on him the mirasi of Mothirambedu village and
another village permanently, subject to his paying all just
dues. At the time of the making of the permanent
settlement in Chingleput District, which was then described
as a Jagir, it was decided by the Company to maintain
Shrotriem, i.e., grants made to Nattuvars, including those
granted by Mr. Lionel Place, and realise their dues through
the instrumentality of the zamindar. This policy “,as
implemented by including the shrotriems in the zamindari by
transferring, the Company’s ultimate reversionary lights to
the zamindar. The result was that the shrotriem tenure in
the hands of the Nattuvars continued after the permanent
settlement as it existed prior to it. That is the reason
why some times the village was described as zamin village
and sometimes as Jari Inam Village. That is also why it was
not the subjectmatter of permanent inam settlement. But the
fact remains that Shrotriem tenure continued in the hands of
the Nattuvar and his successors-in-interest, after the
permanent settlement as it was before the said settlement.
The tenure under the Government became in under-tenure under
the zamindar, as the zamindar
928
intervened between the Government and the Nattuvar. As the
village is held under a permanent under-tenure, it falls
squarely under the definition of s. 3(2)(e) of the Madras
Estates Land Act and is, therefore, an estate thereunder and
hence it is an under-tenure estate. As the under-tenure
estate is excluded from the definition of “zamin estate”,
the notification issued by the Government on the basis that
t is a zamin estate is void and the High Court rightly
declared it as void.
In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
929