{"id":201221,"date":"1968-01-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1968-01-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-pl-p-chidambaram-chettiar-vs-t-k-b-santhanaramaswami-odayar-on-10-january-1968"},"modified":"2018-09-26T20:28:53","modified_gmt":"2018-09-26T14:58:53","slug":"t-s-pl-p-chidambaram-chettiar-vs-t-k-b-santhanaramaswami-odayar-on-10-january-1968","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-pl-p-chidambaram-chettiar-vs-t-k-b-santhanaramaswami-odayar-on-10-january-1968","title":{"rendered":"T. S. Pl. P. Chidambaram Chettiar vs T. K. B. Santhanaramaswami Odayar … on 10 January, 1968"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
T. S. Pl. P. Chidambaram Chettiar vs T. K. B. Santhanaramaswami Odayar … on 10 January, 1968<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 1005, \t\t 1968 SCR (2) 754<\/div>\n
Author: V Ramaswami<\/div>\n
Bench: Ramaswami, V.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nT. S. PL.  P. CHIDAMBARAM CHETTIAR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nT. K. B. SANTHANARAMASWAMI ODAYAR & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n10\/01\/1968\n\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMI, V.\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMI, V.\nSHAH, J.C.\nBHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA\n\nCITATION:\n 1968 AIR 1005\t\t  1968 SCR  (2) 754\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1976 SC1066\t (5)\n F\t    1991 SC 604\t (19,30,34)\n\n\nACT:\nMadras Estates Land Act 1 of 1908, ss. 3(2)(d), 3(10)(b) and\n3(16)-Lands  in\t Orathur Padugai in  Tanjore  Palace  Estate\nwhether\t fall under definition of 'estate' in s.  3(2)\t(d)-\nTanjore\t Palace\t Estate\t whether  created  by  grant-Orathur\nPadugai\t whether  a  whole village or  part  of\t a  village-\nDistinction between 'private land' as defined in s. 3(10)(b)\nand 'ryoti land' as defined in s. 3(16).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nWhen  the Raja of Tanjore died in 1855 without leaving\tmale\nissue  the  East India Company took possession\tof  all\t his\nproperties  including  his private property.  However  on  a\nmemorial  being\t presented by the senior widow of  the\tlate\nRaja,  the  Government\tof India  in  1862  \"sanctioned\t the\nrelinquishment,\t of the whole of the landed property of\t the\nTanjore\t Raja in favour of the heirs of the late Raja.\"\t The\nTanjore Palace Estate thus came into existence.\t In 1948 the\nappellant purchased certain lands situate in Orathur Padugai\nwhich  was part of the aforesaid Tanjore Palace Estate,\t and\nthereafter  instituted suits for possession of\tthese  lands\nfrom  various  defendants.  The trial  court  dismissed\t the\nsuits  on  the\tground that the lands were  situated  in  an\n'estate\t under s. 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Lands Act  1\nof  1908 and they were 'ryoti lands' as defined in s.  3(16)\nin which the defendants had acquired occupancy rights.\t The\nMadras\tHigh  Court  affirmed  the  decree,  whereupon\t the\nappellant came to this Court. it was contended on behalf  of\nthe  appellant that (i) the lands did not form\tan  'estate'\nunder s. 3 (2) (d) of the aforesaid Act because the restora-\ntion  of the land to the widows of the Raja of\tTanjore\t did\nnot  amount -to a fresh grant but only a restoration of\t the\nstatus\tquo ante; (ii) that Orathur Padugai was not a  whole\nvillage as required by the definition of 'estate'; (iii) the\nwidows\tof the Raja enjoyed both the 'warams' and the  lands\npurchased  by  the  appellant were 'private  lands'  in\t s..\n3(10)(b)  so that the defendants did not have any  occupancy\nrights therein.\nHELD: (i) The  relinquishment by the Government of India  in\nfavour of the widows\t of  the  Raja in 1862 was  a  fresh\ngrant  as  already  held in several cases. In  view  of\t the\nauthorities  it\t could\tno longer  be  questioned  that\t the\nTanjore\t Palace state was an 'estate' within the meaning  of\ns. 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Lands Act. [759 F-760 B]\nJijoiamba  Bayi\t Saiba v. Kamakshi Bayi Saiba, 3  M.H.\tC.R.\n424,  Sundaram\tAyyar v. Ramachandra Ayyar, I.L.R.  40\tMad.\n3891, Maharaja of Kolhapur v. Sondaram Iyer, I.L.R. 48\tMad.\n1, Sundaram v. Deva Sankara, A.I.R. 1918 Mad. 428 and T.  R,\nBhavani\t Shankar  Joshi v. Somasunakra\tMoopanar,<\/a>  [1963]  2\nS.C.R. 421, relied on.\nChota  Raja.  Saheb Mahitai v. Suddaram Iyer, 63  I.A.\t224,\nreferred to.\n(ii) There  was\t sufficient material on the record  to\tshow\nthat at least since 1830 onwards Orathur Padugai was a whole\nvillage and therefore an 'estate' within the meaning of\t the\nAct. [762 C]\n(iii) The lands in suit were 'ryoti lands' and not  'private\nlands'.\nThe definition in s. 3(10) read as a whole indicates clearly\nthat  the  ordinary test for 'private land' is the  test  of\nretention by the landholder\n7 5 5\nfor his own personal use and cultivation by him or under his\npersonal  supervision.\tNo doubt, such lands may be  let  on\nshort  leases for the convenience of the landholder  without\nlosing\ttheir  distinctive, character; but it  is  not'\t the\nintention or the scheme of the Act to treat as private those\nlands  with reference to which the only peculiarity  is\t the\nfact that the landlord owns both the warams in the lands and\nhas been letting them out on short ]cases. 1765 H-766 B)\nIn  the present case there was no proof that the lands\twere\never directly cultivated by the landholder.  The High  Court\nhad  found that the same tenants continued to cultivate\t the\nlands without break or change, and the fact that there\twere\nperiodical auctions of the lease rights did not\t necessarily\ndeprive the tenants of the occupancy rights which they\twere\nenjoying.   The\t appellant  had\t not  been  able  to  adduce\nsufficient evidence to rebut the presumption under s. 185 of\nthe  Act that the lands in the inam village are not  private\nlands. [766 C-G]\nYerlagadda  Malikarjuna Prasad Nayudu v. Somayya, I.L.R.  42\nMad. 400 (P.C.), referred to with approval.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 54 to
\n65, 67 and 69 to 71 of 1963.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals from the judgment and decree dated January 10,\t1956
\nof the Madras High Court in Appeal Suit Nos. 223 and 224  of
\n1951, and 264 to 273, 275 and 277 to 279 of 1952.
\nR.   Kesava  Iyengar, R. Thiagarajan and R. Ganapathy  Iyer,
\nfor the appellants (in all the appeals).
\nBishan\tNarain and O. P. Malhotra, for respondent No. 1\t (in
\nC.A. Nos. 54 and 55 of 1963).\n<\/p>\n
M.   R.\t K. Pillai, for respondent No. 2 (in C.A. No. 55  of
\n1963) and for the respondents (in C.As. Nos. 56 to 65, 67 to
\n71 of 1963).\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nRamaswami, J. These appeals are brought against the judgment
\nand  decree in A.S. nos. 223 and 224 of 1951, 264 to 273  of
\n1952, 275 of 1952 and 277 to 279 of 1952 of the Madras\tHigh
\nCourt  dated  January _10, 1956 affirming the  judgment\t and
\ndecree in O.S. nos. 75, 77 to 81 of 1949 and 19 to 22, 24 to
\n26, 28 & 30 to 31 of 1950 of the Subordinate Judge, Tanjore.
\nThe  appellant instituted the above-mentioned suits for\t re-
\ncovery\tof possession from the respective defendants of\t the
\ndisputed lands and for payment of damages at the rate of Rs.
\n501per\tannum per acre.\t The case of the appellant was\tthat
\nthe  disputed  lands which were purchased by him by  a\tsale
\ndeed  dated November 11, 1948 (Ex.  A-145) are\tsituated  in
\nOrathur\t Padugai which is attached to Pannimangalam, one  of
\nthe  villages  comprised in what is known  as  the  “Tanjore
\nPalace Estate”, that
\n756<\/span>
\nthe  said lands are not situated in an estate as defined  by
\nthe Madras Estates Land Act 1 of 1908 (hereinafter  referred
\nto  as\tthe  ‘Act’)  and in any event  the  said  lands\t are
\n‘private  lands’ of the appellant and not ‘ryoti  lands’  as
\ndefined\t  in  the  Act\tand  the  various   defendants\t are
\ntrespassers  in unlawful occupation of the lands and had  no
\nright to continue in possession and were therefore liable to
\nejectment.  The appellant also claimed that the defendants   were
\nliable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 501-
\nper,  annum  per  acre\tin respect of  the  lands  in  their
\nunlawful
\noccupation.    The   defence   in   all\t  the\tsuits\t was
\nsubstantially the same. it    was    contended\t  by\t the
\ndefendants that the disputed
\nlands  are situated in an estate within the meaning of s.  3
\n(2)  (d)  of the Act, that the lands are  ‘ryoti  lands’  in
\nwhich  they have permanent right of occupancy and that\tthey
\nare not “private lands” as. alleged by the appellant and the
\ncivil  court had therefore no jurisdiction to entertain\t the
\nsuits and the Revenue Courts alone had jurisdiction.  By his
\ntwo judgments dated October -‘)1, 1950 and February 2, 1951,
\nthe Subordinate Judge, Tanjore dismissed the suits,  holding
\nthat  the lands were situated in an estate and\twere  ‘ryoti
\nlands’\tin which the defendants were entitled  to  occupancy
\nrights.\t  The  appellant took the matter in  appeal  to\t the
\nMadras\tHigh Court which affirmed the decision of the  trial
\ncourt and dismissed all the appeals.\n<\/p>\n
The  two principal questions which are presented for  deter-
\nmination  in these appeals are : (1) whether the  suit-lands
\nare located in an estate within the meaning of s. 3 (2)\t (d)
\nof  the Act, and (2 ‘ ) if the answer to the first  question
\nis  in the affirmative, whether the suit-lands are  ‘private
\nlands’ or ‘ryoti lands’ as defined in the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Section  3 (2) (d) of the Act,  as  originally
\n\t      enacted states
\n\t      “3.  In  this Act. unless there  is  something
\n\t      repugnant in the subject or context
\n\t      (2)   ‘Estate’ means-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (d)   any\t village of which the  land  revenue
\n\t      alone has
\n\t      been  granted  in inam to a person not  owning
\n\t      the kudivaram thereof, provided that the grant
\n\t      has been made, confirmed or recognised by\t the
\n\t      British  Government, or any separated part  of
\n\t      such village;”\n<\/p>\n
The section was amended by the Madras Estates Land (Third
\nAmendment) Act 18 of 1936 to the following effect
\n757<\/span>
\n\t      ” (d) any inam village of which the grant\t has
\n\t      been  made,  confirmed  or recognised  by\t the
\n\t      British\tGovernment,   notwithstanding\tthat
\n\t      subsequent to the grant,\tthe village has been
\n\t      partitioned among the grantees,\t  or\t the
\n\t      successors   in  title  of  the\tgrantee\t  or
\n\t      grantees.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Explanation (1):\n<\/p>\n
\t      Where  an\t inam  village\tis  resumed  by\t the
\n\t      Government,it  shall  cease to be\t an  estate;
\n\t      but, if any village so resumed is subsequently
\n\t      regranted by the Government    as an main,  it
\n\t      shall,  from  the\t date of  such\tre-grant  be
\n\t      regarded as an estate.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Explanation (2):\n<\/p>\n
\t      Where a portion of an inam village is  resumed
\n\t      by the Government, such portion shall cease to
\n\t      be  part\tof the estate, but the rest  of\t the
\n\t      village shall be deemed to be an inam  village
\n\t      for  the purposes of this sub-clause.  If\t the
\n\t      portion  so  resumed or any  part\t thereof  is
\n\t      subsequently regranted by the Government as an
\n\t      inam, such portion  or  part shall,  from\t the
\n\t      date  of such re-grant be regarded as  forming
\n\t      part  of the inam village for the purposes  of
\n\t      this sub-clause.”\n<\/p>\n
\t      By  s. 2 of the Madras Act 11 of 1945 s. 3  of
\n\t      the   Act\t was  further  amended\tas   follows
\n\t      “Section 2 : (1)
\n\t      In sub-clause (d) of clause (2) of s. 3 of the
\n\t      Madras  Estates  Land Act,  1908\t(hereinafter
\n\t      referred to as the said Act) Explanations\t (1)
\n\t      and  (2) shall be renumbered  as\tExplanations
\n\t      (2) and (3) respectively and   the   following
\n\t      shall be inserted as Explanation (1)namely :
\n\t      Explanation (1):\n<\/p>\n
\t       Where  a grant as an inam is expressed to  be
\n\t      of  a named village, the area which forms\t the
\n\t      subject matter of the grant shall be deemed to
\n\t      be  an estate notwithstanding that it did\t not
\n\t      include  certain lands in the village of\tthat
\n\t      name  which  have\t already  been\tgranted\t  on
\n\t      service  or other tenure or been reserved\t for
\n\t      communal purposes :\n<\/p>\n
\t      (2)The  amendment made by sub-section  (1)  be
\n\t      deemed to have had effect as from the date  on
\n\t      which   the   Madras   Estates   Land   (Third
\n\t      Amendment) Act,
\n\t      758<\/span>
\n\t      1936  came into force and the  said  Amendment
\n\t      shall  be read and construed  accordingly\t for
\n\t      all purposes;”\n<\/p>\n
\t      Section  3(19)  of  the  Act  has\t defined   a
\n\t      “Village” as follows
\n\t      ”\t ‘Village’ means any local area situated  in
\n\t      or constituting an estate which is  designated
\n\t      as  a village in the revenue accounts and\t for
\n\t      which  the  revenue, accounts  are  separately
\n\t      maintained by one or more karnams or which  is
\n\t      now recognised by the State Government or\t may
\n\t      hereafter be declared by the State  Government
\n\t      for the purposes of this Act to be a  village,
\n\t      and  includes any hamlet or hamlets which\t may
\n\t      be attached thereto.”\n<\/p>\n
The history of what is known as the “Tanjore Palace  Estate”
\nis  well-known\tand  will  be  found  in  various   reported
\ndecisions  of the Judicial Committee and of the Madras\tHigh
\nCourt  :  (See\tJijoyiamba  Bayi  Saiba\t v.  Kamakshi\tBayi
\nSaiba(l),  Sundaram Ayyar v. Ramachandra Ayyar(2),  Maharaja
\nof  Kolhapur  v.  Sundaram Iyer (3)  and  Chota\t Raja  Saheb
\nMohitai v. Sundram Iyer(4).  In 1799, Serfoji, the then Raja
\nof Tanjore, surrendered his territory into the hands of\t the
\nEast India Company, but he was allowed to retain  possession
\nof certain villages and lands which constituted his  private
\nproperty.   When his son the last Raja died in 1855  without
\nleaving\t male issue, the East India Company took  possession
\nof  all\t his  properties  including  his  private  property.
\nThereupon  the\tsenior widow, Kamachee Boye Sababa  filed  a
\nBill on the Enquiry Side of the Supreme Court of Madras, and
\nobtained a decree that the seizure of the private properties
\nwas  wrong.  On appeal by the Secretary of State in  Council
\nof India, the Privy Council reversed the decree, and ordered
\nthe  dismissal\tof  the Bill.  Thereafter,  a  memorial\t was
\nsubmitted  to the Queen and in 1862 the Government of  India
\nwhich  had succeeded the East India Company “sanctioned\t the
\nrelinquishment\tof the whole of the landed property  of\t the
\nTanjore Raj in favour of the heirs of the late Raja”.  Under
\ninstructions from the Government of India, the Government of
\nMadras,\t on  August 21, 1862, passed an order  the  material
\npart of which is as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “In  Col.\t Durand’s letter above recorded\t the
\n\t      Government  of  India  have  furnished   their
\n\t      instructions with reference to the disposal of
\n\t      the   landed  property  of  the  Tanjore\t Raj
\n\t      regarding which this Government addressed them
\n\t      under date the 17th May last.  Their decision
\n\t      (1)\t   3\t      M.H.C.R.\t\t424.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2) I.L.R. 40 Mad.  389.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (3) I.L.R. 48 Mad. 1.\t\t\t (4)
\n\t      63  I.A. 224.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       759<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      is  to the effect, that ‘since it is  doubtful
\n\t      whether  the lands in question can be  legally
\n\t      dealt  with as State property, and  since\t the
\n\t      plea  in equity and policy, for treating\tthem
\n\t      as  the  private property of the\tRaja  is  so
\n\t      strong that it commands the unanimous  support
\n\t      of the members of the Madras Government,’\t the
\n\t      whole  of the lands are to be relinquished  in
\n\t      favour  of  the heirs of the late\t Raja  (page\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      228).”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  Tan  ore Palace Estate came into being as a  result  of
\nthis grant.\n<\/p>\n
The question in these appeals is whether the property invol-
\nved  in the suits being a part of the Tanjore Palace  Estate
\ncan  be considered to be an “estate” within the\t meaning  of
\nthe term in the Act.  It was conceded by the Counsel for the
\nappellant  that\t if it was part of an inam it  would  be  an
\n,estate’  within the meaning of that Act.  It was,  however,
\ncontended that the manner in which the property reverted  to
\nthe widows of the Raja in 1862 after an act of State did not
\nshow that the estate was freshly granted but was restored to
\nthe  widows who enjoyed both the warams, in the same way  as
\nthe warams were enjoyed before.\t To -put it differently, the
\nargument   was\tthat  the  effect  of  restoration  or\t re-
\nlinquishment was only the undoing of the wrong and therefore
\nif  the villages were the private properties of the Raja  at
\nthe  time  of  the  seizure  then  the\tsame  character\t  is
\nmaintained  when  they were handed back to his\twidow.\t The
\ncontention  was that what actually happened in 1862 was\t the
\nrestoration of the status quo ante rather than a fresh grant
\nby  the British Government.  The argument is not a  new\t one
\nbut  has  been\traised before and rejected in  a  number  of
\nauthorities.   In  Jijoyiama  Bayi Saiba  v.  Kamakshi\tBayi
\nSaiba(1)  it  was  held by the Madras High  Court  that\t the
\nGovernment  Order, 1862 was a grant of grace and  favour  to
\npersons\t who  had  forfeited  all  claims  to  the  personal
\nproperties  of the Rajah by the act of State and was  not  a
\nrevival of any antecedent rights which they might have\tbad.
\nA similar opinion of the grant was expressed in a Full Bench
\ncase  of  the  Madras  High  Court  in\tSundaram  Ayyar\t  v.
\nRamachandra Ayyar(2) But in Maharaja of Kolhapur v. Sundaram
\nIyer(3), Spencer, O.C.J., appeared to doubt the decision  of
\nScotland,  C.J., in Jijoyiamba Bayi Saiba v.  Kamakshi\tBayi
\nSaiba(l) that there was a grant of grace and favour in 1862.
\nA similar view was taken in Sundaram v. Deva Sankara(4), but
\nthese cases have been subsequently ex-\n<\/p>\n
(1)  3 M.H.C.R. 424.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  I.I.R. 48 mad. 1.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  I.L.R. 40 Mad. 389.\n<\/p>\n
(4)  A.I.R. 1918 Mad. 428.\n<\/p>\n
760<\/span><\/p>\n
plained\t or  not accepted on this point.   In  T.R.  Bhavani
\nShankar Joshi v. Somasundra Moopanar<\/a>(1), it was held by this
\nCourt  that  the  act of State having  made  no\t distinction
\nbetween\t the private and public properties of the Rajah\t the
\nprivate properties were lost by the Act of State leaving  no
\nright outstanding in the existing claimants.  The Government
\nOrder, 1862 was therefore a fresh grant due to the bounty of
\nthe  Government and not because of any antecedent rights  in
\nthe   grantees.\t   It  was  pointed  out  that\t the   words
\n“relinquished” or “restored” in the Government Order did not
\nhave the legal effect of reviving any such right because  no
\nrights survived the act of State.  The root of title of\t the
\ngrantees  was  the  Government\tOrder of  l862\tand  it\t was
\ntherefore  held that the restoration amounted to a grant  in
\ninam  by  the British Government within the meaning  of\t the
\nAct.  But the question whether with regard to any-particular
\narea  what  was granted in inam is a whole village  or\tless
\nthan  a whole village is a question that has to- be  decided
\nwith reference to the facts of each particular case.
\nThe question therefore arises whether the area in  question,
\nviz.,  Orathur\tPadugai,  constitutes a\t whole\tvillage\t and
\ntherefore  an estate within the meaning of s. 3 (2)  (d)  of
\nthe Act.  It was contended for the appellant that the  suit-
\nlands  were  not  comprised in a whole\tinam  village.\t The
\ncontention  was\t rejected  by both the\tlower  courts  which
\nconcurrently  held  that the lands were located\t in  Orathur
\nPadugai,  a whole village by itself or a named\tvillage\t and
\ntherefore  an estate within the meaning of the Act.  It\t was
\nargued\ton behalf of the appellant that the finding  of\t the
\nlower  courts is vitiated in law because it is based  on  no
\nevidence.   In\tour opinion, there is no  justification\t for
\nthis  argument.\t On behalf of the respondents reference\t was
\nmade  to Ex.  A-64, Pannimangalam Vattam Jamabandhi  Account
\nindividual-war,\t Fasli\t1296, which shows in  column  no.  3
\nOrathur\t Padugai as a village . Similarly, in Ex.   A-78(a),
\nCess  account  for Pannimangalam Vattam and Ex.\t  A-79,\t the
\nVillage\t war Jamabandhi Account Fasli 1309  Orathur  Padugai
\nvillage is shown as a whole village.  Exhibit A-82,  Village
\nwar  Jamabandhi\t Individual  War,  Fasli  1310,\t Ex.   A-84,
\nJamabandhi  Ghoshpara for the village, Fasli 1311  and\tExs.
\nA-153  to  A-157 all mention Orathur Padugai as\t a  village.
\nAll  the  leases,  lease-auctions  and\treceipts  given\t for
\npayment\t of  rent  speak of Orathur Padugai  as\t a  separate
\nvillage.  Even the sale deeds, Exs.  B-6, B-31, B-32 and  B-
\n33  contain  a\trecital of Orathur  Padugai  as\t a  separate
\nvillage.  It is manifest therefore that there is  sufficient
\nmaterial  to show that at least since 1830  onwards  Orathur
\nPadugai\t is  a whole village.  On behalf  of  the  appellant
\nreference was made
\n(1)  [1963] 2 S C.R. 421.\n<\/p>\n
761<\/span><\/p>\n
to Ex.\tA-128 and Ex.  A-129 dated April 6, 1800 and July 5,
\n1800.  Exhibit A-128 is a letter from the President, Tanjore
\nto the Secretary to the Government of Madras in which  there
\nis a reference to Pannimungalam.  It is stated therein ‘that
\n“the  fields  of Pannymungalam to the  westward\t of  Tanjore
\nwhich  from  time  immemorial have  been  reserved  for\t the
\npasture\t  of  the  circar  cow\tdo  remain  in\tthe   Raja’s
\npossession.   There  is neither village nor  cultivation  on
\nthese  lands”.\t In  answer  to\t this  letter  there  is   a
\ncommunication from the Chief Secretary to the Government  to
\nthe Resident, Tanjore, Ex.  A-129.  In para 5 of this letter
\nit  is\tstated:\t “The fields  of  Pucanymangalam  containing
\nneither village nor cultivation shall remain in the hands of
\nRajah  for  the pasturage of His  Excellency’s\tcows.”\tMuch
\nreliance  was placed by Counsel for the appellant  on  these
\ntwo  documents, but the High Court has rightly\tpointed\t out
\nthat  the identity of the lands referred to in\tExs.   A-128
\nand  A-129 is doubtful.\t The lands in suit ate\tsituated  at
\nleast  30  miles south-east of Tanjore\ttown  in  Mannaroudi
\ntaluk  but in Exs.  A-128 and A-129 the lands are  described
\nas  westward of Tanjore.  That there was Orathur village  in
\nexistence  even\t as early as 1830 is clear from\t Ex.   A-151
\nbecause in describing certain boundaries of another  village
\nit is mentioned as to the north of assessed Orathur  village
\nnadappu\t karai\t(bund pathway).\t Exhibit A-4 of\t 1868  is  a
\nDebit and Credit Balance account relating to Orathur Padugai
\nattached  to  Mukasa Pannimangalam Thattimal.  It  is  clear
\nfrom  this Exhibit that the entire village except the  waste
\nland  was  assessed.  From Exhibit A-5\tdated  September  4,
\n1870,  it  appears that the punja lands in  Orathur  village
\nwere  taken on lease from the Collector of Tanjore  who\t was
\nthe  receiver  and  manager of the estate of  the  Rajah  of
\nTanjore for a period of 5 years on payment of a total sum of
\nRs.  122\/9\/3.  Exhibits A-7, A-8, A-12 to A-16 and A-18\t are
\neither\tAdaiyolai muchilikas or lease deeds for leasing\t the
\nlands  in Orathur padugai village for a term -ranted by\t the
\nCollector   of\t Tanjore.   In\tall  these   documents\t the
\ndescription  is\t that  the lands  are  situated\t in  Orathur
\nPadugai\t in Mokhasa Pannymangalam Thattimal.  The  documents
\nrange  between the years 1870 to 1875.\tIn Ex.A-63 which  is
\nthe  individual\t war settlement register  for  Pannymangalam
\nvattam for Fasli 1296 against column 6 it is stated that the
\nincome in the matter of the amani cultivation of  sugarcane,
\netc.,  on  95 kullis is Rs. 4 and it is in  Orathur  padugai
\nvillage,  Pannymangalam vattam.\t Exhibit A-61 is  the  debit
\nand  credit  balance account of Orathur\t padugai  for  Fasli
\n1294.\t Similarly,  in\t Ex.   A-64,  the   individual\t war
\nsettlement  register  for  Pannimangalam  vattam,  column  3
\nrelating  to the village of Orathur states that the  Orathur
\npadugai is a village and the vattam is Pannimangalam.  There
\nare similar des-\n<\/p>\n
762<\/span><\/p>\n
criptions of Orathur as a village in Ex.  A-65 which is\t the
\nsettlement register for Pannimangalam vattam for Fasli 1297.
\nExhibit\t A-80  contains\t a similar  description\t of  Orathur
\nvillage\t in Pannimangalam vattam.  Exhibits A-153  to  A-155
\nand A-157 are all lease deeds between the years from 1901 to
\n1906  relating to lease of lands in Orathur padugai.  It  is
\nmanifest that there is sufficient evidence to show that from
\n1868  right up to 1907 Orathur padugai was considered  as  a
\nseparate village.  It was contended for the respondents that
\neven  after  the  passing of the  Act  Orathur\tpadugai\t was
\ntreated\t as a separate village.\t Reference was made in\tthis
\nconnection to a number of documents, Exs.  A-158, A-105,  A-
\n159,  A-106, A-116, A-161, B-17,A-117 to A-120, B-18, A-  12
\n1, A- 1 62 and A- 1 63.\t In our opinion, the finding of\t the
\nlower  courts  that Orathur padugai is a whole\tvillage\t and
\ntherefore constitutes an ‘estate’ within the meaning of\t the
\nAct  is\t supported by proper evidence and  Counsel  for\t the
\nappellant  is  unable  to make good his\t argument  that\t the
\nfinding of the lower courts is in any way defective in law.
\nWe  proceed  to consider the next question arising  in\tthis
\ncase,  viz.,  whether  the suit-lands  are  ‘private  lands’
\nwithin the meaning of s. 3 ( 1 0) (b) of the Act which reads
\nas follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “3.  In  this Act, unless there  is  something
\n\t      repugnant in the subject or context-
\n\t      .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (10)  ‘Private land’-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   in\tthe  case of an\t estate\t within\t the
\n\t      meaning of sub-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      clause (d) of clause (2), means-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (i)  the\tdomain\tor  home-farm  land  of\t the
\n\t      landholder,  by  whatever\t designation  known,
\n\t      such as, kambattam, khas, sir or pannai; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)  land  which\t is  proved  to\t have\tbeen
\n\t      cultivated  as private land by the  landholder
\n\t      himself,\tby  his\t own servants  or  by  hired
\n\t      labour,  with  his own or hired stock,  for  a
\n\t      continuous period of twelve years, immediately
\n\t      before  the first day of July  1908,  provided
\n\t      that the landholder has retained the kudivaram
\n\t      ever since and has not converted the land into
\n\t      ryoti land; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iii) land  which\t is  proved  to\t have\tbeen
\n\t      cultivated  by landholder himself, by his\t own
\n\t      servants\tor by hired labour, with his own  or
\n\t      hired stock, for a continuous period of twelve
\n\t      years  immediately  before the  first  day  of
\n\t      November\t1933, provided that  the  landholder
\n\t      has
\n\t      763<\/span>
\n\t      retained the kudivaram ever since and has\t not
\n\t      converted the land into ryoti land; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iv)  land  the entire kudivaram in which\t was
\n\t      acquired\tby the landholder before  the  first
\n\t      day    of\t  November   1933    for    valuable
\n\t      consideration   from  a  person\towning\t the
\n\t      kudivaram but not the melvaram, provided\tthat
\n\t      the landholder has retained the kudivaram ever
\n\t      since  and  has not converted  the  land\tinto
\n\t      ryoti  land, and provided further that,  where
\n\t      the  kudivaram  was  acquired at\ta  sale\t for
\n\t      arrears  of rent the land shall not be  deemed
\n\t      to be private land unless it is proved to have
\n\t      been cultivated by the land holder himself, by
\n\t      his own servants or by hired labour, with\t his
\n\t      own or hired stock, for a continuous period of
\n\t      twelve years since the acquisition of the land
\n\t      and  before  the commencement  of\t the  Madras
\n\t      Estates Land (Third Amendment) Act, 1936.”
\n\t      Section 3(16) of the Act defines ‘Ryoti  land’
\n\t      as follows :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “Ryoti  land’  means  cultivable\tland  in  an
\n\t      estate  other than private land but  does\t not
\n\t      include–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   beds  and bunds of tanks and of  supply,
\n\t      drainage, surplus or irrigation channels;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   threshing-floor, cattle-stands, village-
\n\t      sites, and other lands situated in any  estate
\n\t      which are set apart for the common use of\t the
\n\t      villagers;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (c)   lands  -ranted on service tenure  either
\n\t      free of rent or on favourable rates of rent if
\n\t      granted before the passing of this Act or free
\n\t      of rent if granted after that date, so long as
\n\t      the service tenure subsists.”
\n\t      Section  185 of the Act enacts  a\t presumption
\n\t      that land in inam village is not private\tland
\n\t      and reads as follows :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “185.   When  in\tany suit  or  proceeding  it
\n\t      becomes  necessary  to determine\twhether\t any
\n\t      land is the landholder’s private land,  regard
\n\t      shall be had–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (1)   to local custom,
\n\t      (2)   in\tthe  case of an\t estate\t within\t the
\n\t      meaning of sub-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       clause (a), (b), (c), or (e) of clause (2) of
\n\t      section  3, to the question whether  the\tland
\n\t      was  before  the\tfirst  day  of\tJuly   1898,
\n\t      specifically let as private land, and
\n\t      (3) to any other evidence that may be produced
\n\t      Provided\tthat the land shall be presumed\t not
\n\t      to  be  private  land until  the\tcontrary  is
\n\t      proved:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      764<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      Provided further that in the case of an estate
\n\t      within the meaning of sub-clause (d) of clause
\n\t      (2) of section 3-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (i)   any expression in a lease, patta or\t the
\n\t      like, executed or issued on or after the first
\n\t      day  of July, 1918 to the effect\tor  implying
\n\t      that  a  tenant has no right of  occupancy  or
\n\t      that  his\t right of occupancy  is\t limited  or
\n\t      restricted   in  any  manner,  shall  not\t  be
\n\t      admissible  in  evidence for  the\t purpose  of
\n\t      proving  that the land concerned\twas  private
\n\t      land at the commencement of the tenancy; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)  any such expression in a lease, patta or
\n\t      the like, executed or issued before the  first
\n\t      day  of  July  1918, shall not  by  itself  be
\n\t      sufficient for the purpose of proving that the
\n\t      land  concerned was private land at  the\tcom-
\n\t      mencement of the tenancy.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Section 6 is to the following effect
\n\t      “6. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act,
\n\t      every  ryot  now in possession  or  who  shall
\n\t      hereafter\t be  admitted  by  a  landholder  to
\n\t      possession  of  ryoti  land  situated  in\t the
\n\t      estate   of  such\t landholder  shall  have   a
\n\t      permanent right of occupancy in his holding.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Explanation  (1).-For  the  purposes  of\tthis
\n\t\t\t    subsection,\t the expression ‘every ryo
\nt now  in
\n\t      possession’  shall include every\tperson\twho,
\n\t      having  held  land  as  a\t ryot  continues  in
\n\t      possession of such land at the commencement of
\n\t      this Act.\n<\/p>\n
The  Subordinate Judge and the High Court have\tconcurrently
\ncome to the conclusion, upon consideration of the  evidence,
\nthat  the  lands  in suit are not private  lands  but  ryoti
\nlands.\t On  behalf  of the  appellant\tMr.  Kesava  Iyengar
\nconceded  that\tonus is on the appellant to  show  that\t the
\nlands  are ‘private lands’ within the meaning of  the  Act’,
\nbut  the  argument was stressed that the lower\tcourts\thave
\nfailed\tto  take into account  certain\timportant  documents
\nfiled on behalf of the appellant, viz., A-128, A-129 and the
\nPaimash\t account dated August 25, 1830, Ex.  A-147  and\t the
\nLand Register, Ex.A-134. In our opinion, there is no warrant
\nfor  the argument advanced on behalf. of the appellant.\t  As
\nregards Exs.  A-128 and A-129 it is apparent that apart from
\nthe question as to the identity of the land, they relate  to
\na  period  previous  to\t the  grant  of\t 1862  which   alone
\nconstitutes  the root of title of the grantees and there  is
\nno question of restoration or revival of any anterior right.
\nThe  same  reasoning applies to the  Paimash  account  dated
\nAugust 25, 1830, Ex.  A-147 which
\n765<\/span>
\ncannot,\t therefore, be held to be of much relevance in\tthis
\nconnection.  Reliance was placed on behalf of the  appellant
\non  Ex.\t  A-134, the Land Register for\tPannimangalam  which
\nshows  that in Orathur Thattimal Padugai which\tconsists  of
\nPunjais\t (dry lands) and are rain-fed, the land-holder\t(the
\nTanjore\t Palace\t Estate) owns both the warams  (Iruwaram  in
\nvernacular).   It  was\targued for the\tappellant  that\t the
\nexpression  ‘Iruwaram’\tmeans  that the land  was  owned  as
\nPannai\tor private lands.  Reference was made to the  record
\nof rights and Irrigation Memoir dated January 13, 1935,\t Ex.
\nB-8 which shows that the lands are lruwaram and there are no
\nwet  lands.   But the use of the  expression  “Iruwaram”  in
\nthese documents is not decisive of the question whether\t the
\nland  is  private land of the appellant or  not.   Under  s.
\n3(10) of the Act, private land comprises of two\t categories,
\nprivate lands technically so-called, and lands deemed to  be
\nprivate\t lands.\t In regard to private lands technically\t so-
\ncalled,\t it  must  be the domain or home-farm  land  of\t the
\nlandholder  a,,.  understood  in law.  The  mere  fact\tthat
\nparticular lands are described in popular parlance as pannai
\nkambattam, sir, khas, is not decisive of the question unless
\nthe lands so-called partake of the characteristics of domain
\nor  homefarm  lands.   In our opinion the  correct  test  to
\nascertain  whether  a land is domain or\t home-farm  is\tthat
\naccepted by the Judicial Committee in Yerlagadda Malikarjuna
\nPrasad\tNayudu\tv. Somayya(1), that is, whether it  is\tland
\nwhich  a  zamindar  has cultivated himself  and\t intends  to
\nretain as resumable for cultivation by himself even if\tfrom
\ntime  to time he demises for a season.\tThe Legislature\t did
\nnot  use  the  words  ‘domain  or  home-farm  land’  without
\nattaching to them a meaning; and it is reasonable to suppose
\nthat the Legislature would attach to these words the meaning
\nwhich would ‘be given to them in ordinary English.  It seems
\nto  us\tthat  the sub-clause (b) (i) of\t the  definition  is
\nintended  to cover those lands which come  obviously  within
\nwhat  would Ordinarily be recognised as the domain or  home-
\nfarm, that is to say, lands appurtenant to the\tlandholder’s
\nresidence and kept for his enjoyment and use.  The home-farm
\nis  land which the landlord cultivates himself, as  distinct
\nfrom  land which he lets out to tenants to be  farmed.\t The
\nfirst  clause  is, therefore meant to  include\tand  signify
\nthose lands which are in the ordinary sense of he word home-
\nfarm  lands.  The other clauses of the definition appear  to
\ndeal  with  those  lands  which\t would\tnot  necessarily  be
\nregarded  as  home-farm lands in the ordinary usage  of\t the
\nterm;  and with reference to those lands there is a  proviso
\nthat lands purchased at a sale for arrears of revenue  shall
\nnot be regarded as private lands unless cultivated  directly
\nby  the landlord for the required period.  It seeing  to  us
\nthat the definition reads as a whole
\n(1) I.L.R. 42 Mad. 400(P.C.).\n<\/p>\n
3 Sup.\tCI\/68-5
\n766<\/span>
\nindicates clearly that the ordinary test for ‘private  land’
\nis the’ test of retention by the landholder for his personal
\nuse   and   cultivation\t by  him  or  under   his   personal
\nsupervision.   No  doubt,  such lands may be  let  on  short
\nleases for the convenience of the landholder without  losing
\ntheir distinctive character; but it is not the intention  or
\nthe  scheme of the Act to treat as private those lands\twith
\nreference to which the only peculiarity is the fact that the
\nlandlord  owns\tboth the warams in the lands  and  has\tbeen
\nletting\t them out on short term leases.\t There must, in\t our
\nopinion be something in the evidence either by way of  proof
\nof  direct  cultivation or by some clear  indication  of  an
\nintent\tto regard these lands as retained for  the  personal
\nuse  of\t the landholder and his establishment  in  order  to
\nplace  those lands in the special category of private  lands
\nin  which  a tenant under the Act cannot  acquire  occupancy
\nrights.\t  In  the present case there is no  proof  that\t the
\nlands  were  ever  directly cultivated\tby  the\t landholder.
\nAdmittedly,  soon  after the grant of 1862 the\testate\tcame
\nunder  the administration of Receivers, who always  let\t out
\nthe lands to the tenants to be cultivated.  In Ex.  B-8, the
\nRecord of Rights the lands are entered in column 5 as  Punja
\nor  dry\t land.\tIn column 4 which requires the entry  to  be
\nmade as private land they are not entered as private  lands.
\nIf was argued for the appellant that the lands are sometimes
\ncalled\t‘Padugai’  and that the expression  meant  that\t the
\nlands  were  within the flood bank and forming part  of\t the
\nriver bed.  But the description of the land as ‘Padugai’  is
\nnot  of\t much consequence because they are  also  called  as
\nOrathur\t ‘Thottam  meaning a garden where garden  crops\t are
\nraised to distinguish it from paddy fields.  It appears that
\nthe lands actually lie between two rivers and comprise\tmore
\nthan  100  acres, and by their physical\t feature  cannot  be
\n‘padugai’  in the sense in which the term is normally  used.
\nThe  argument was stressed on behalf of the  appellant\tthat
\nleasing rights of the land were auctioned periodically.\t But
\nthe  High  Court has observed that one and the\tsame  tenant
\ncontinued to bid at the auction and there was evidence\tthat
\ntenants\t continued to cultivate the lands without  break  or
\nchange, and the fact that there were periodical auctions  of
\nthe lease rights did not necessarily deprive the tenants  of
\nthe\t   occupancy\t    rights\t  which\t\tthey
\ne’  were enjoying.  We accordingly hold that  the  appellant
\nhas not adduced sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption
\nunder  s. 18: of the Act that the lands in the inam  village
\nare  not private land and the argument of the  appellant  on
\nthis aspect of the case must be rejected.
\nFor  the reasons expressed we hold that the judgment of\t the
\nMadras\tHigh  Court dated January 10, 1956  is\tcorrect\t and
\nthese  appeals\tmust  be dismissed with\t costs–one  set  of
\nhearing fee.\n<\/p>\n
G.   C.\t\t\t\t\t\t     Appeals\ndismissed\n767<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India T. S. Pl. P. Chidambaram Chettiar vs T. K. B. Santhanaramaswami Odayar … on 10 January, 1968 Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 1005, 1968 SCR (2) 754 Author: V Ramaswami Bench: Ramaswami, V. PETITIONER: T. S. PL. P. CHIDAMBARAM CHETTIAR Vs. RESPONDENT: T. K. B. SANTHANARAMASWAMI ODAYAR & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-201221","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nT. S. Pl. P. Chidambaram Chettiar vs T. K. B. Santhanaramaswami Odayar ... on 10 January, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-pl-p-chidambaram-chettiar-vs-t-k-b-santhanaramaswami-odayar-on-10-january-1968\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T. S. Pl. P. Chidambaram Chettiar vs T. K. B. Santhanaramaswami Odayar ... on 10 January, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-pl-p-chidambaram-chettiar-vs-t-k-b-santhanaramaswami-odayar-on-10-january-1968\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1968-01-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-26T14:58:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"28 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-s-pl-p-chidambaram-chettiar-vs-t-k-b-santhanaramaswami-odayar-on-10-january-1968#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-s-pl-p-chidambaram-chettiar-vs-t-k-b-santhanaramaswami-odayar-on-10-january-1968\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T. S. Pl. P. Chidambaram Chettiar vs T. K. B. Santhanaramaswami Odayar … on 10 January, 1968\",\"datePublished\":\"1968-01-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-26T14:58:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-s-pl-p-chidambaram-chettiar-vs-t-k-b-santhanaramaswami-odayar-on-10-january-1968\"},\"wordCount\":4927,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-s-pl-p-chidambaram-chettiar-vs-t-k-b-santhanaramaswami-odayar-on-10-january-1968#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-s-pl-p-chidambaram-chettiar-vs-t-k-b-santhanaramaswami-odayar-on-10-january-1968\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-s-pl-p-chidambaram-chettiar-vs-t-k-b-santhanaramaswami-odayar-on-10-january-1968\",\"name\":\"T. S. Pl. P. Chidambaram Chettiar vs T. K. B. Santhanaramaswami Odayar ... on 10 January, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1968-01-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-26T14:58:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-s-pl-p-chidambaram-chettiar-vs-t-k-b-santhanaramaswami-odayar-on-10-january-1968#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-s-pl-p-chidambaram-chettiar-vs-t-k-b-santhanaramaswami-odayar-on-10-january-1968\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-s-pl-p-chidambaram-chettiar-vs-t-k-b-santhanaramaswami-odayar-on-10-january-1968#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T. S. Pl. P. Chidambaram Chettiar vs T. K. B. Santhanaramaswami Odayar … on 10 January, 1968\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"T. S. Pl. P. Chidambaram Chettiar vs T. K. B. Santhanaramaswami Odayar ... on 10 January, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-pl-p-chidambaram-chettiar-vs-t-k-b-santhanaramaswami-odayar-on-10-january-1968","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T. S. Pl. P. Chidambaram Chettiar vs T. K. B. Santhanaramaswami Odayar ... on 10 January, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-pl-p-chidambaram-chettiar-vs-t-k-b-santhanaramaswami-odayar-on-10-january-1968","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1968-01-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-26T14:58:53+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"28 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-pl-p-chidambaram-chettiar-vs-t-k-b-santhanaramaswami-odayar-on-10-january-1968#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-pl-p-chidambaram-chettiar-vs-t-k-b-santhanaramaswami-odayar-on-10-january-1968"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T. S. Pl. P. Chidambaram Chettiar vs T. K. B. Santhanaramaswami Odayar … on 10 January, 1968","datePublished":"1968-01-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-26T14:58:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-pl-p-chidambaram-chettiar-vs-t-k-b-santhanaramaswami-odayar-on-10-january-1968"},"wordCount":4927,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-pl-p-chidambaram-chettiar-vs-t-k-b-santhanaramaswami-odayar-on-10-january-1968#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-pl-p-chidambaram-chettiar-vs-t-k-b-santhanaramaswami-odayar-on-10-january-1968","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-pl-p-chidambaram-chettiar-vs-t-k-b-santhanaramaswami-odayar-on-10-january-1968","name":"T. S. Pl. P. Chidambaram Chettiar vs T. K. B. Santhanaramaswami Odayar ... on 10 January, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1968-01-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-26T14:58:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-pl-p-chidambaram-chettiar-vs-t-k-b-santhanaramaswami-odayar-on-10-january-1968#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-pl-p-chidambaram-chettiar-vs-t-k-b-santhanaramaswami-odayar-on-10-january-1968"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-pl-p-chidambaram-chettiar-vs-t-k-b-santhanaramaswami-odayar-on-10-january-1968#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T. S. Pl. P. Chidambaram Chettiar vs T. K. B. Santhanaramaswami Odayar … on 10 January, 1968"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201221","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=201221"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201221\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=201221"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=201221"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=201221"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}