{"id":222821,"date":"1965-09-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1965-09-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-p-govindarajulu-naidu-on-23-september-1965"},"modified":"2016-11-28T04:00:36","modified_gmt":"2016-11-27T22:30:36","slug":"state-of-madras-vs-p-govindarajulu-naidu-on-23-september-1965","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-p-govindarajulu-naidu-on-23-september-1965","title":{"rendered":"State Of Madras vs P. Govindarajulu Naidu on 23 September, 1965"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Madras vs P. Govindarajulu Naidu on 23 September, 1965<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 969, \t\t 1966 SCR (1) 915<\/div>\n
Author: K Subbarao<\/div>\n
Bench: Subbarao, K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF MADRAS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nP.   GOVINDARAJULU NAIDU\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n23\/09\/1965\n\nBENCH:\nSUBBARAO, K.\nBENCH:\nSUBBARAO, K.\nMUDHOLKAR, J.R.\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1966 AIR  969\t\t  1966 SCR  (1) 915\n\n\nACT:\nMadras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari)\t Act\n(26  of\t 1948),\t s.  2(15)-Under-tenure\t and  Zamin  estate-\nDifference between,\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nIn 1796 the suit village was granted to the person occupying\nthe office of Nattuvar conferring on him the, mirasi of\t the\nvillage\t permanently, subject to his paying all\t just  dues.\nAt  the\t time  of making the  permanent\t settlement  in\t the\nDistrict in which the village was situate, it was decided by\nthe  Government\t to abolish the office of  Nattuwar  but  to\nmaintain  the  shrotiems,  that\t is,  the  grants  made\t  to\nNattuvar,  and realise the dues through the  instrumentality\nof  the Zamindar.  The policy was implemented  by  including\nthe shrotiem in the Tirumazhy zamindari and by\ttransferring\nthe   Government's  ultimate  reversionary  rights  to\t the\nZamindar.   The result was that the shrotriem tenure in\t the\nhands of the Nature continued after the permanent settlement\nas it existed prior to it, except that the tenure under\t the\nGovernment became an under-tenure under the zamindar, as the\nzamindar intervened between the Government and the Nattuvar.\nIn 1950, the appellant State notified the shrotriem  village\nas  a  zamin  estate  under  s.\t 3  of\tthe  Madras  Estates\n(Abolition  and\t conversion into Ryotwari) Act,\t 1948.\t The\nrespondent  who\t was  in possession  and  enjoyment  of\t the\nvillage filed a suit for a declaration that the notification\nwas  illegal and void.\tThe trial court dismissed the  suit,\nbut the High Court on appeal, held that the notification was\nillegal\t and  void,  because, the village was  not  a  zamin\nvillage, but a whole inam village.\nIn  appeal  to\tthis Court, it was  contended  that  as\t the\nvillage\t was included in the assets of the zamindari at\t the\ntime of permanent settlement, it was part of zamindari.\nHELD  :\t As the village was held under\ta  permanent  under-\ntenure, it fell under the definition in s. 3 (2) (e) of\t the\nMadras Estates Land Act, 1908, and was, therefore, an estate\nthereunder  and hence it was an undertenure estate under  s.\n2(3) of the Abolition Act.  As the \"under tenure\" estate  is\nexcluded   from\t the  definition  of  \"zamin  estate\",\t the\nnotification  by  the Government on the basis that it  is  a\nzamin estate was void. [928 A-B]\nThough a village is physically a part of a zamindari, if  it\nis  held on a permanent under-tenure. it is included in\t the\ndefinition  of\tan  estate under s. 3(2)(e)  of\t the  Madras\nEstates\t Land Act.  To constitute an under-tenure it is\t not\nmaterial  whether  the grant was a pre-settlement  or  post-\nsettlement  one,  but  what is important is :  in  whom\t the\nreversionary interest rests.  The reversionary interest\t may\nrest  in the proprietor of the zamindari either\t because  at\nthe  time of permanent settlement the inam was\tincluded  in\nthe  assets of the zamindari or because he himself  was\t the\ngrantor\t of  a\tpermanent  under-tenure.   'Me\tshowing\t  of\nshrotriem village as village of zamindar is not decisive  in\nthe  context of the Act.  The distinction between zamin\t and\nunder-tenure  is relevant for the purpose  of  compensation.\n[919 B, F-G; 920 A: 925 D]\n916\nGopisetti  Veeraswami  v.  Sagiraju  Seetharama\t  Kanatayya,\n(1926)\t51  M.L.J.  394 and Narayanaswami  Bahudur  v.\tBoda\nthammayya, 1930 M.W.N. 945, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 446 of
\n1963.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated September 9,\t1958
\nof the Madras High Court in Appeal Suit No. 85 of 1956.
\nA.   Ranganadham Chetty and A. V. Rangam, for the appellant.
\nT.V.R. Tatachari, for the respondent.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nSubba Rao, J. This appeal by certificate raises the question
\nwhether\t the village of Mothirambedu is a  zamindari  estate
\nunder  the  Madras Estates (Abolition  and  Conversion\tinto
\nRyotwari)  Act, 1948 (Madras Act XXVI of 1948),\t hereinafter
\ncalled the Act.\n<\/p>\n
The  facts may be briefly stated.  Mothirambedu\t village  is
\none of the shrotriem villages in the Chingleput district  in
\nthe State of Madras.  The respondent purchased the same from
\none  P. Anathapadmanabacharlu under a sale deed\t dated\tJuly
\n10,  1946, for a sum of Rs. 26,000\/-, and was in  possession
\nand enjoyment thereof.\tOn December 12, 1950, the Government
\nof Madras issued    a  notification  under s. 3 of  the\t Act
\ntaking\tover the said village as a zamindari   estate.\t The
\nGovernment  took possession of the same on January 3,  1951.
\nOn March 15, 1954, the respondent filed O.S. No. 22 of\t1954
\nin  the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Chingleput,  against
\nthe  State  of\tMadras\tfor  a\tdeclaration  that  the\tsaid
\nnotification  of his village as zamindari estate  under\t the
\nsaid  Act  was illegal and void.  In the plaint\t he  claimed
\nthat the said village was not an “estate” within the meaning
\nof  the Madras Estates Land Act and, therefore, it  did\t not
\nvest in the State.  But that plea was subsequently given  up
\nand nothing need be said in that regard.  The State filed  a
\nwritten-statement  asserting  that the said  village  formed
\npart   of  Tirumazhy  Zamindari,  that\tit  was\t  separately
\nregistered  in\tthe  office  of\t the  Collector\t and   that,
\ntherefore,  it was a zamin estate within the meaning of\t the
\nsaid Act.\n<\/p>\n
The  learned  Subordinate Judge, Chingelput, held  that\t the
\nsuit  village  was a zamin estate and that,  therefore,\t the
\nsaid  notification was legal and binding on the\t respondent.
\nOn appeal, the High Court of Judicature at Madras held\tthat
\nit was not proved that the said village was a zamin village,
\nbut it was a whole
\n917<\/span>
\ninam  village.\tOn that finding, it granted the plaintiff  a
\ndeclaration  that the notification of the said village as  a
\nzamin estate under the Act was illegal and void, as the said
\nvillage was a whole inam village.  Hence the appeal.
\nLearned\t counsel  for  the State  contended  that  the\tsaid
\nvillage\t was a, included in the assets of the zainindari  at
\nthe  time of the permanent settlement, that it continued  to
\nbe,  a part of the said estate till it was  abolished  under
\nthe Act.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. T. V. R. Tatachary, learned counsel for the\t respondent,
\non the other hand, argued that the said village, was granted
\nas  a  shrotriement  before the permanent  settlement  to  a
\nperson\tholding\t the office of a Nattuvar, that\t though\t the
\nsaid  village was included in the assets of  the  zamindari,
\nthe  pre-existing  tenure was not disturbed,  and  that\t the
\ngrantee and his successors continued to hold the village  as
\nan  under-tenure  from the zamindar , as by  reason  of\t the
\npermanent  settlement the zamindar became  an  intermediary.
\nIn  short, his contention was that the said village  was  an
\nunder-tenure estate falling under s. 3(2) (e) of the  Madras
\nEstates\t Land  Act  and that in any view, it  had  not\tbeen
\nestablished that it was is a zamin village.
\nBefore\twe  advert  to\tthe facts of the  case\tit  will  be
\nconvenient to notice some of the aspects of law relevant  to
\nthe said facts.\n<\/p>\n
The Madras Estates Land Act, 1908
\n\t      Section 3. (2) “Estate” means-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)   any\t  permanently  settled\t estate\t  or
\n\t      temporarily settled zamindari;\n<\/p>\n
\t      (b)   any portion of such permanently  settled
\n\t      estate or temporarily settled zaminadri  which
\n\t      is separately registered in the office of\t the
\n\t      Collector;\n<\/p>\n
\t      (c)   . . . . . . . . .\n<\/p>\n
\t      (d)   (As\t it  stood before the  Amending\t Act
\n\t      XVIII of 1936)
\n\t      any  village of which the land  revenue  alone
\n\t      has  been\t -ranted  in inam to  a\t person\t not
\n\t      owning  the kudiwaram thereof,  provided\tthat
\n\t      the   grant  has\tbeen  made,   confirmed\t  or
\n\t      recognized  by the British Government  or\t any
\n\t      separated part of a village.\n<\/p>\n
\t       918<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      (After  the  Amending Act XVIII of  1936.\t any
\n\t      inam village of which the grant has been made,
\n\t      confirmed\t  or  recognized  by   the   British
\n\t      Government, notwithstanding that subsequent to
\n\t      the  grant, the village has  been\t partitioned
\n\t      among the grantees or the Successors in  title
\n\t      of the grantee or grantees.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (e)   any\t portion consisting of one  or\tmore
\n\t      villages\tof any of the estates  specified  in
\n\t      clauses  (a), (b) and (c) which is held  on  a
\n\t      permanent undertenure.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t The Act
\nSection 2. (3) “estate” means a zamindari or an\t undertenure
\nor an inam estate.\n<\/p>\n
\t       (7)  “inam estate” means an estate within the
\n\t      meaning  of section 3, clause (2)(d),  of\t the
\n\t\t\t    Estates Land Act, but does not include
\n an  inam
\n\t      village  which  became an estate by virtue  of
\n\t      the Madras Estates Land (Third Amendment) Act,
\n\t      1936.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (15)  “under  tenure estate” means  an  estate
\n\t      within  the  meaning, of\tsection\t 3,   clause
\n\t      (2)(e) of the Estates Land Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (16)  “zamindari estate” means–\n<\/p>\n
\t       (i)  an estate within the meaning of  section
\n\t      3, clause 2(a), of the Estates Land Act, after
\n\t      excluding\t therefrom  every portion  which  is
\n\t      itself an estate under section 3, clause\t2(b)
\n\t      or 2(e), of that Act; or\n<\/p>\n
\t       (ii) an estate within the meaning of  section
\n\t      3,  clause 2(b) or 2(c), of the  Estates\tLand
\n\t      Act’  after excluding therefrom every  portion
\n\t      which  is\t itself an estate under\t section  3,
\n\t      clause 2(e), of that Act.\n<\/p>\n
The aforesaid provisions may be summarized thus: The  Madras
\nEstates\t Land Act recognizes for the purpose of that  Act  5
\ncategories  of estates.\t The Act grouped the said 5  estates
\nunder three categories, namely, zamin, under-tenure and inam
\nestates.  The estates defined in cls. (a), (b) and (c) of s.
\n3 (2) of the Madras Estates Land Act, excluding therefrom in
\nunder-tenure estate,
\n919<\/span>
\nare  classified as zamin estates.  An estate  falling  under
\nthe definition in s. 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act,
\nexcluding  therefrom an inam estate which became  an  estate
\nunder  the  Madras Estates (Third Amendment) Act,  1936,  is
\ndescribed as an inam estate under the Act.  An estate  under
\nthe  definition\t of s. 3(2)(e) of the Estates  Land  Act  is
\nbrought\t under the definition of the  “under-tenure  estate”
\nunder the Act.\tIt will be noticed at this stage that though
\na village is physically a part of a zamindari if it is\theld
\non  a  permanent  under-tenure,\t it  is\t excluded  from\t the
\ndefinition  of\ta  zamin  estate  but  included\t under\t the
\ndefinition of an “under-tenure estate”.\t The result of\tthis
\nclassification\tis, an inam village held under\ta  permanent
\nunder-tenure  is not a zamin estate.  A village can be\theld
\nunder  a permanent undertenure whether that village was\t the
\nsubject-matter\t of  a\tpre-settlement\tgrant  or  a   post-
\nsettlement grant.  To illustrate : take a village which\t was
\ngranted permanently to an inamdar before 1802 by the British
\nGovernment.   At  the time of the permanent  settlement\t the
\nsaid village was included in the permanently settled estate.
\nThe effect of that was that the inamdar who was holding\t the
\nvillage\t under\tthe Government continued to  hold  the\tsame
\nunder the proprietor.  Take another illustration: after\t the
\npermanent  settlement the proprietor made a permanent  grant
\nof the whole inani village to an inamdar.  The inamdar\theld
\nthe village under the zamindar.\t In either case the  village
\nwas  held  under the proprietor of the\tpermanently  settled
\nestate.\t  The proprietor, who is liable to pay pish kush  to
\nthe   Government,   is\tthe  tenure-holder.   H.-   is\t the
\nintermediary between the inamdar and the Government; that is
\nwhy the inamdar is described as under-tenure holder.  It is,
\ntherefore,  clear that to constitute an under-tenure  it  is
\nnot  material whether the grant was a pre-,settlement  or  a
\npost-settlement\t one, but what is important is, in whom\t the
\nreversionary interest rests.  That reversionary interest may
\nrest  in  the  proprietor either because  at  the  permanent
\nsettlement  the\t inam  was included in\tthe  assets  of\t the
\nzamindari  or  because\the  himself was\t the  grantor  of  a
\npermanent   under-tenure.   This  aspect  of  the  law\t was
\nconsidered in two decisions of the Madras High Court.  Where
\na pre-settlement Mokhasa village was included in the  assets
\nof the zamindari it was held that the village was held under
\na permanent under-tenure within the meaning of S. 3 (2)\t (e)
\nof the Madras Estates Land Act : see Gopisetti Veeraswami v.
\nSagiraju  Seetharama Kantayya(1), and Narayanaswami  Bahadur
\nv. Boda Thammavva (2) . This legal position will be material
\nwhen we consider the documents filed in this case.
\n(1) (1926) 51 M. L. J. 394.\t (2) (1930) M. W. N. 945.\n<\/p>\n
920<\/span><\/p>\n
It  may\t be mentioned that the\tdistinction  between  “zamin
\nestate”, “inam estate” and “under-tenure estate” made  under
\nthe Act is relevant, inter alia, for the purpose of  payment
\nof compensation.  The basis on which compensation payable in
\nrespect of an inam estate is to be calculated would yield  a
\nlarger\tmeasure\t of compensation than that in respect  of  a
\nzamin  estate.\tIn regard to an under-tenure estate, if\t the
\nunder-tenure was created prior to the permanent\t settlement,
\nthe compensation payable would be ,on the basis adopted\t for
\nzamin  estate  with certain deductions; if .it\twas  created
\nsubsequent  to\tthe permanent settlement,  the\tcompensation
\nwould  be on the basis adopted for a zamin estate.   In\t the
\npresent case, as the inam was created prior to the permanent
\nsettlement, if the contention of the respondent was correct,
\nbe would get a higher compensation.  That is the reason\t for
\nthis dispute. (See ss. 27, 28, 3 1, 32, 35, 36 and 37 of the
\nAct).\n<\/p>\n
It will also be useful to know, as we said for\tappreciating
\nthe  ,evidence,\t who is a Nattuvar.  Nattuvar or  Natwar  is
\ndescribed  in the Manual of Chingleput District thus, at  p.
\n244:\n<\/p>\n
\t       ”  The  first  and highest  officer  was\t the
\n\t      “Natwar”\tor headman of a Nadu, or  circle  of
\n\t      villages,\t  the\tcultivation  of\t  which\t  he
\n\t      supervised   on  the  part  of   the   Govern-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      ment.These   officers   were   possessed\t  of
\n\t      considerable  privileges,\t and  were  mean  of
\n\t      great dignity and reputed wealth.\t They appear
\n\t      to have been lost sight of after the territory
\n\t      was  made\t over  to the  British.\t  The  Nabob
\n\t      recognised  or ignored them, deprived them  of
\n\t\t\t    their  offices,  or\t restored  to  the
\nm   their
\n\t      privileges,  as they resisted or fell in\twith
\n\t      his   exactions,\tor  as\this   rapacity\t was
\n\t      sharpened\t by the urgency of his\tnecessities.
\n\t      Such a system had demoralized what was  really
\n\t      a very useful body of men, who were, moreover,
\n\t      eager to be relieved from the consequences  of
\n\t      the  ascendancy  of the  dubashes,  which\t had
\n\t      reduced  them  to the  condition\tof  ordinary
\n\t      ryots.   Mr.  Place  took\t advantage  of\t the
\n\t      disposition  they now showed to return to\t the
\n\t      discharge\t  of  their  duties,  to  which\t  he
\n\t      therefore\t  restored   them   under    certain
\n\t      guarantees for their good behaviour.”
\n\t       “The  Natwars”  were a very ancient  body  of
\n\t      officials.”\n<\/p>\n
 It  will be seen from the said extract that the  office  of
\nNattuvar  was  an  important  one,  that  it  possessed\t  of
\nconsiderable privileges, that it fell into evil days  during
\nthe  period of the Nawabs, and that during the British\trule
\nMr. Place, the then Collector of Chingleput,
\n\t\t\t    921<\/span>
\nrestored the office of Nattuvar under certain guarantees for
\nthe good behaviour of the Nattuvars.  It appears that at the
\ntime  of  permanent settlement in the  Chingleput  District,
\nwhich was then discribed as a Jagir, the office of  Nattuvar
\nwas  abolished but the Nattuvars were allowed to retain\t the
\nshrotriem  villages granted to them.  This will appear\tfrom
\nthe appendices to the Report of the Estates Land  Committee,
\nat  pp.\t 228 to 253.  Learned counsel for both\tthe  parties
\nagreed\tthat the extracts given in the statement of case  of
\nthe respondent are correct.  As the report is not  available
\nto us, we cite the extracts from the said statement of case.
\nParagaraph 66 of the said Appendices
\n\t      “‘The permanent settlement of the land revenue
\n\t      having\trendered   unnecessary,\t  all\t the
\n\t      Subordinate  officers of revenue\tbetween\t the
\n\t      Collectors   and\tthe  Carnums,  the   general
\n\t      instructions  directed that those\t superfluous
\n\t      offices  including that of Nattuvar should  be
\n\t      abolished.  The nature of the powers exercised
\n\t      under  the  duties  attached  to\tthat  office
\n\t      furnished abundant reason for  annulling\t it;
\n\t      but the individual persons now holding it have
\n\t      claim  to\t indulgence and it is  our  duty  to
\n\t      submit\t their\t  pretensions\t to\tyour
\n\t      Lordship’s consideration…………….. They
\n\t      have been considered to be honorable  stations
\n\t      and  length of possession has annexed to\tthem
\n\t      the  idea of property although the  emoluments
\n\t\t\t    of an office ought under ordinary circ
\numstances
\n\t      to cease with the discontinuance of the office
\n\t      itself,  yet it will be just under the  stated
\n\t      conideration,  to grant a compensation in\t the
\n\t      case  of\tthe Nattuwars adequate to  the\tloss
\n\t      sustained\t       by\tthe\t   immediate
\n\t      incumbents…………. We recommend that your
\n\t      Lordship in Council should confer on them,  as
\n\t      an act of indulgence, the possession of  their
\n\t      Shrotriem\t lands tenable under a Purnwanah  of
\n\t      Government.”\n<\/p>\n
\t       Paragraph  67:  Although the  Nauttuwars\t who
\n\t      were   appointed\t under\tthe   authority\t  of
\n\t      Government  during Mr. Place’s  management  of
\n\t      the Jagheer cannot plead length of service, we
\n\t      yet  recommend that they might be included  in
\n\t      this  arrangement\t in  consideration  of\t the
\n\t      assistance  rendered by them in the  lease  of
\n\t      the lands at that period of time,
\n\t       Paragraph 74 : The Shrotriem lands in general
\n\t      ,ire  so connected with the  Government  lands
\n\t      that it
\n\t      922<\/span>
\n\t       been  deemed  expedient to  provide  for\t the
\n\t      collection  of the shrotriem rent through\t the
\n\t      channel  of  the proprietor of the  estate  in
\n\t      which the shrotriem lands are situated and  to
\n\t      provide  through\tthe  same  channel  for\t the
\n\t      collection   of  the  commuted  marahs.\t The
\n\t      Zamindars\t  will,\t  therefore,   be   entitled
\n\t      (according   to  usage)  subject\t always\t  to
\n\t      prosecution for the abuse of it to call in the
\n\t      aid of the inhabitants of the shrotriem  lands
\n\t      for  purposes for which it has been  customary
\n\t      to render such assistance.\n<\/p>\n
The  following extracts from the Minutes of Consultation  in
\nthe Revenue Department dated April 13, 1802, may be useful:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The subject of the Nauttawars is familiar- to
\n\t      the  Board.  The nature of the office and\t its
\n\t      connection  with\tthe  administration  of\t the
\n\t      Revenue  has been discussed at length  on\t the
\n\t      records  of  the Government.  A  reference  to
\n\t      this   discussion\t must demonstrate  that\t the
\n\t      office can no longer be useful.  The  superior
\n\t      advantages which the Nauttawars have  acquired
\n\t      by  the  enjoyment of the high  warum  and  of
\n\t      mauniams, and the ground of interference which
\n\t      they are calculated to afford with the  rights
\n\t      of  the proprietor, render it  expedient\tthat
\n\t      the  motives  of such an influence  should  be
\n\t      removed together with the office.\t The  Board,
\n\t\t\t    therefore,\tauthorise  the\tabolition
\n of   the
\n\t      office of Nauttawar and the resumption of\t the
\n\t      emoluments attached to the performance of\t the
\n\t      duties of that office.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       At  the period, however, of  conferring\tsuch
\n\t      extensive\t benefit  on the body of  people  as
\n\t      they will receive from the establishment of  a
\n\t      system of permanent revenue and of judicature,
\n\t      the Board are disposed favourably to  consider
\n\t      the  claims of the present incumbents  in\t the
\n\t      office  of  Nauttawar.  They concur  with\t the
\n\t      Commission  it will be just, under the  stated
\n\t      circumstances,  to continue to the  Nauttawars
\n\t      their Sbrotriem lands; because they have\tbeen
\n\t      considered  to  be  honourable  stations\t and
\n\t      length of possession has annexed to them\tidea
\n\t      of property”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It  will be seen from the said extracts that the  Commission
\nappointed  to go into the question of the abolition  of\t the
\noffice\tof Nattavaras recommended that the office should  be
\nabolished but the Government should confer on the incumbents
\nthe posses-\n<\/p>\n
923<\/span><\/p>\n
sion of their shrotriem lands under a purvana.\tThe  Revenue
\nBoard  accepted\t the recommendation of\tthe  Commission;  it
\nagreed to allow the Nattuvars to continue to have possession
\nof their shrotriem lands.  It is, therefore, clear that\t the
\nshrotriem  lands were given permanently to Nattuvars by\t the
\nState,\tthat at the time of permanent settlement the  tenure
\nwas  continued and that their inclusion in the\testate\tonly
\neffected  a transfer of the reversionary interest  from\t the
\nState to the Proprietor.\n<\/p>\n
With  this back-round let us look at the documents filed  in
\nthe  case.   The earliest document on record is Ex.  7,\t the
\ncertified  copy\t of  cowle  -ranted  by\t Mr.  Lionel  Place,
\nCollector of Honorable Company’s Jageer to Rangasami  Mudali
\ndated December 10, 1796.  As it is an important document, we
\nshall-read it
\n\t      “Cowle granted by Lionel Place Esq., Collector
\n\t      of   the\t Honorable  Company’s\tJagheer\t  to
\n\t      Rangaswamy Moodaly.\n<\/p>\n
\t       Whereas the villages of Moderambedu and Mada-
\n\t      vapoondy\tin the district of  Poonamalle\tfrom
\n\t      neglect  and  want of mirasdars\tbeing  in  a
\n\t      desolate\tand  uncultivated  state  producing,
\n\t      nothing  to  the\tcircar.\t  Rangaswamy  Mudaly
\n\t      Nautawar\tof the said district having  agreed,
\n\t      provided the meerassee of the said villages be
\n\t      conferred\t on  him, to clear and\ttender\tthem
\n\t\t\t    productive.\n<\/p>\n
\t       I  do therefore hereby confer  on  Rangaswamy
\n\t      Mudaly and his heirs the meerassee of the said
\n\t      villages, to continue in the enjoyment of\t the
\n\t      same,  so\t long  as they\tcarry  on  t  proper
\n\t      cultivation,  pay\t all  just  dues,  and\t are
\n\t      obedient to the circar.\n<\/p>\n
\t       Dated  this 10th day of December in the\tyear
\n\t      one thousand seven hundred and ninetysix.
\n\t       (signed) Lional Place
\n\t       Collector.”\n<\/p>\n
The genuineness of this document is not in question.  It was
\nfiled  by consent.  This document discloses that  Rangaswamy
\nMudali was a Nattuvar in the district of Poonamalle.  As the
\nvillage\t of Mothirambedu, with which we are  now  concerned,
\nwas  in\t a  “desolate and uncultivated state”  for  want  of
\nmirasdar,  the\tmirasi\tof  the\t said  village\twas  granted
\npermanently to Rangaswami Mudali and his heirs.\t In Wilson’s
\nGlossary,  the\tfollowing meaning to  the  Tamil  expression
\n“mirasi” is given
\n924<\/span>
\n\t\t“Inheritance,  inherited property or  right;\n<\/p>\n
\t      the  term is used, especially in the south  of
\n\t      India,  to  signify  lands  held\tby  absolute
\n\t      hereditary  proprietorship under one of  three
\n\t      contingencies.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
According to Wilson, mirasdar means the holder of hereditary
\nlands or office in a village.  It is, therefore, Clear\tthat
\nunder  this  document the said village of  Mothirambedu\t was
\ngiven  to Rangaswami Mudali, who was a village\tofficer,  in
\nabsolute  hereditary proprietorship.  The village was  given
\ntinder a permanent hereditary grant, subject to, inter alia,
\nthe  grantee paying all just dues to the  Government.\tThis
\ndocument is couched in clear and unambiguous terms and under
\nit  the\t permanent  inam was granted  to  Rangaswamy  Mudali
\nsubject to his payment of dues.\n<\/p>\n
Exhibit B. 2 is described as “Trimishy Zamindari  Statement”
\nin regard to waste and unproductive lands.  It is not dated.
\nIt  relates  to Mothirambedu village  and  another  village.
\nUnder  the heading “remarks”, the following  statements\t are
\nfound
\n\t      “Watered\tby Trimishy tank, New  Strotriem  to
\n\t      Nautyavalappa  Mooduly proposed to be  resumed
\n\t      as  per Order of the Board, dated 2nd  October
\n\t      1800.   Another  village Alatoor\tis  included
\n\t      with  these  two and the rent is paid  on\t the
\n\t      whole  and  the villages are  watered  by\t the
\n\t      Trinilshy\t lank.\tRented for 10 years to\tNaut
\n\t      Rangaswamy  Moodaly  5 of which  are  expired.
\n\t      The  rent raised from 10 pagodas\tthe  present
\n\t\t\t    Fasli to 25 Pagodas the last year by t
\nhe lease.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Watered by the Trimashe tank.”\n<\/p>\n
Learned\t counsel or the, State contends that  this  document
\nshows  that  Ex.   A-7\twas not given  effect  to  and\tthat
\nRangaswamy  Mudali  was only a lessee for 10 years.   As  we
\nhave stated earlier, this statement does not bear any (late,
\nthough\tthe  internal evidence discloses that it  came\tinto
\nexistence after October 2, 1800.  This is not signed by\t any
\nofficer.   We  do  not\tknow  on  what\tmaterial  the\tsaid
\nobservations  were made and on what occasion  this  document
\nwas prepared and by whom and whether this was acted upon  at
\nthe  time  of  permanent settlement.   We  cannot  draw\t any
\npresumption  on\t an unsigned statement which does  not\teven
\nbear a date.  This must, therefore, be ignored.
\nExhibit B-1 is thee copy of the Kabuliat executed by Venkiah
\nthe proprietor of tile zamindari of Tirumishi it the time of
\npermanent  settlement  of  the estate in  his  favour.\t The
\nsannad is
\n925<\/span>
\nnot produced.  It shows that the zamindari  consisted of  57
\npurchased villages and 8 Shrotriem villages but the names of
\nthe  Shrotriem\tvillages are not given.\t  This\tdocument  ex
\nfacie  does  not  show\tthat Mothirambedu  was\tone  of\t the
\nvillages   that\t  were\tthe  subject-matter   of   permanent
\nsettlement.   The learned counsel for the State relied\tupon
\nthe  Chingleput\t Manual\t wherein  a  statement\tshowing\t the
\nparticulars  of several tenures other than ryotwari  in\t the
\nDistrict  of  Chingleput is given.   Dealing  with  Saidapet
\nTaluk under the heading “Zamindaries”, Mothirambedu  village
\nis  mentioned;\tand under the heading “inam  villages”,\t en-
\nfranchised or unenfranchised, the said village is not shown.
\nFrom his it is contended that this village was a part of the
\nzamindari  and that it must have been one of  the  strotriem
\nvillages shown as included in the zamindari of Tirumishi  in
\nthe  Kabuliat executed by Venkiah.  Be that as it  may,\t the
\nfact that Shrotriem villages have been shown as villages  of
\nthe zamindari is not decisive in the context of the Act,  as
\nPermanent  under-tenure villages, as expained earlier,\thave
\nbeen  specifically  excluded from the  definition  of  zamin
\nestate.\n<\/p>\n
Exhibit\t B-3 does not bear any date.  It contains the  names
\nof  the zamindars in the Madras Presidency.  We do not\tknow
\nfor  what  purpose this document was  prepared.\t  Under\t the
\nheading “names of estates”, Mothirambedu is given.  The name
\nof P. Ananthapadmanabhan is shown under the heading “Name of
\nthe    present\tholder”.   Apart  from\tthe   heading,\t the
\nexpression  “estate”  is  appropriate in the  context  of  a
\nzamindari as well as a village held under a permanent under-
\ntenure.\t  The  honorific  title\t “zamindar”  adopted  by   a
\nparticular inamdar does not make him a zamindar and his land
\ndoes  not cease to be an inam.\tIt is either an inam or\t not
\nunder the provisions of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
Exhibits  B-4  and B-5 are the extracts from the  Inam\tFair
\nRegister  of  the  year\t 1862  in  respect  of\tMothirambedu
\nvillage.  They deal with some minor inams of small  extents.
\nIt may be mentioned at this stage that these registers\twere
\nprepared in connection with the inam settlement.  They\tdeal
\nwith  pre-settlement inams only, which were not included  in
\nthe  assets of the zamindari.  Presumably these minor  inams
\nin  Mothirambedu  village were pre-settlement inams  not  so
\nincluded and, therefore, they were the subject-matter of the
\nenquiry and were eventually confirmed.\tBut it is said\tthat
\nthe fact that the minor inams were the subject-matter of the
\nsettlement but the village itself was not settled thereunder
\nindicates  that\t the village was a part\t of  the  zamindari.
\nBut, as we have pointed out earlier, the village,
\n926<\/span>
\nsubject\t to  the  subsisting tenure,  was  included  in\t the
\nzamindari  and. therefore, there was no scope  nor  occasion
\nfor its being the subject-matter of inam settlement.
\nExhibit\t A-2 is the title-deed granted\tto  Narasimhachariar
\nand  7\tothers\tby  the\t Inam  Commissioner,  Madras,  dated
\nNovember   24,\t 1869.\t The  title  deed  was\t issued\t  to
\nNarasimhachariar  in respect of 2 acres and 39 cents of\t wet
\nland pursuant to orders made in the Inam Register.  But\t the
\nsaid  2\t acres\tand 39 cents of wet  land  is  described  as
\nsituated  in the Jari inam village of Mothirambedu taluk  of
\nSaidapet  District.  According to Wilson’s  Glossary,  “Jari
\ninam”  means  “A grant of land or other endowment  still  in
\nforce,\tnot resumed”.  This recital, therefore, support\t the
\nconclusion  that  the inam of the  village  of\tMothirambedu
\ntaluk  was  still subsisting, though the right\tof  ultimate
\nreversion vested in the zamindar.\n<\/p>\n
Exhibit\t B-6  is  “B” Register\tof  Sriperumbudur  Taluk  of
\nChingleput  District.\tIt  contains  a\t list  of  the\tinam
\nvillages.   Mothirambedu minor inam is shown in the list  as
\nit  should  be.\t Mothirambedu village has no place  in\tthat
\nlist as it was included in the zamindari.
\nThe respondent placed before the Court various sale deeds to
\nsupport\t his title to the said village.\t Under Ex.   A-6,  a
\nsaledeed dated September 2, 1919, Haji Usman Sahib sold\t the
\nexclusive  miras  of Mothirambedu to Rangachariar.   In\t the
\nsale  deed Mothirambedu is described in different places  as
\nMiras  Mitta, zamin village, Mothirambedu zamin village\t and
\nMothirambedu  Ega Bhoga Miras zamin.  “Ega Bhogam” means  in
\nTamil possession or tenure of village land by one person  or
\nfamily without any co-sharer.  No doubt the word “zamin”  is
\nordinarily used to denote the estate of a zamindar, that  is
\nthe  proprietor\t under the permanent  settlement.   But\t the
\nexpression ”   zamindar”  is  also adopted by  some  of\t the
\ninamdars  as an honorific term.\t A mere popular\t description
\nof  an\tundertenure village as a zamin does not\t make  it  a
\nzamin  estate  under  the Act, if it is\t not  one  in  fact.
\nIndeed, the document shows that in some parts, for  instance
\nin Schedule A, Mothirambedu has been described as Ega  Bhoga
\nMiras\tMothirambedu  zamin  village  and  in  Schedule\t  B,
\nMelmanambedu village is described as Shrotriem\tMelmanambedu
\nvillage,   whereas   in\t the  preamble\t to   the   document
\nMothirambedu  is  described as Miras  of  Mothirambedu,\t and
\nMelmanambedu,  as Zamin Melmanambedu.  This shows  that\t the
\ncharacter of the village has not been described
\n\t\t\t    927<\/span>
\n with  any legal precision.  What is more, the character  of
\nthis  village was in dispute in a suit between the  zamindar
\nand the tenants in the year 1921.  That suit ultimately went
\nup to the High Court and a Division Bench of the Madras High
\nCourt  disposed\t of the appeal on November  23,\t 1927.\t The
\njudgment  is  marked as Ex.  A-4.  Therein  the\t High  Court
\npointed\t out that the zamindar, who was the  appellant,\t did
\nnot  produce  the  sannad nor did he file  any\told  records
\nrelating  to the zamindari on the ground that they were\t not
\navailable  in  the Collector’s office.\t The  only  evidence
\nadduced\t to  support  his contention was the  fact  that  in
\nregard\tto  the village fixed assessment was paid  from\t the
\nyear  1856 onwards, and that it was referred to\t in  certain
\nGovernment  registers  as  zamin village.   The\t High  Court
\naccepted  the finding of the Subordinate Judge that  it\t was
\nnot  a part of the zamindari.  Except the certified copy  of
\nthe  Kabuliat executed by Venkiah, the then zamindar,  which
\ndoes  not  include this village and the\t unsigned  statement
\nalleged\t to  have  been filed in  the  permanent  settlement
\nproceedings,  which  is\t not  proved  no  further   material
\nevidence has been placed in the present proceedings.  We  do
\nnot see any justification to take a different view from that
\naccepted by the High Court in the year 1927.
\nFrom the discussion of the aforesaid evidence, the following
\nfacts emerge In 1796 Mr. Lionel Place, the then Collector of
\nthe  Honorable Company’s Jagheer, -ranted a cowle to  Ranga-
\nswamy  Mudali, who was occupying the office of\ta  Nattuvar,
\nconferring  on\thim the mirasi of Mothirambedu\tvillage\t and
\nanother village permanently,  subject to his paying all just
\ndues.  At the time of the making   of\t  the\t   permanent
\nsettlement in Chingleput District, which was then  described
\nas  a  Jagir,  it was decided by  the  Company\tto  maintain
\nShrotriem,  i.e., grants made to Nattuvars, including  those
\ngranted by Mr. Lionel Place, and  realise their dues through
\nthe  instrumentality  of  the zamindar.\t  This\tpolicy\t“,as
\nimplemented by including the shrotriems in the zamindari  by
\ntransferring, the Company’s ultimate reversionary lights  to
\nthe  zamindar.\tThe result was that the shrotriem tenure  in
\nthe  hands  of the Nattuvars continued after  the  permanent
\nsettlement  as it existed prior to it.\tThat is\t the  reason
\nwhy  some times the village was described as  zamin  village
\nand sometimes as Jari Inam Village.  That is also why it was
\nnot the subjectmatter of permanent inam settlement.  But the
\nfact remains that Shrotriem tenure continued in the hands of
\nthe  Nattuvar  and  his\t successors-in-interest,  after\t the
\npermanent  settlement as it was before the said\t settlement.
\nThe tenure under the Government became in under-tenure under
\nthe zamindar, as the zamindar
\n928<\/span>
\nintervened between the Government and the Nattuvar.  As\t the
\nvillage\t is  held under a permanent under-tenure,  it  falls
\nsquarely  under the definition of s. 3(2)(e) of\t the  Madras
\nEstates Land Act and is, therefore, an estate thereunder and
\nhence  it  is an under-tenure estate.  As  the\tunder-tenure
\nestate\tis excluded from the definition of  “zamin  estate”,
\nthe notification issued by the Government on the basis\tthat
\nt  is  a  zamin estate is void and the\tHigh  Court  rightly
\ndeclared it as void.\n<\/p>\n
In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
\nAppeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
929<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Madras vs P. Govindarajulu Naidu on 23 September, 1965 Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 969, 1966 SCR (1) 915 Author: K Subbarao Bench: Subbarao, K. 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 […]<\/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-222821","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Madras vs P. Govindarajulu Naidu on 23 September, 1965 - 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\/state-of-madras-vs-p-govindarajulu-naidu-on-23-september-1965\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Madras vs P. Govindarajulu Naidu on 23 September, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-p-govindarajulu-naidu-on-23-september-1965\" \/>\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=\"1965-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-27T22:30:36+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=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madras-vs-p-govindarajulu-naidu-on-23-september-1965#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madras-vs-p-govindarajulu-naidu-on-23-september-1965\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Madras vs P. Govindarajulu Naidu on 23 September, 1965\",\"datePublished\":\"1965-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-27T22:30:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madras-vs-p-govindarajulu-naidu-on-23-september-1965\"},\"wordCount\":4695,\"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\\\/state-of-madras-vs-p-govindarajulu-naidu-on-23-september-1965#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madras-vs-p-govindarajulu-naidu-on-23-september-1965\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madras-vs-p-govindarajulu-naidu-on-23-september-1965\",\"name\":\"State Of Madras vs P. Govindarajulu Naidu on 23 September, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1965-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-27T22:30:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madras-vs-p-govindarajulu-naidu-on-23-september-1965#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madras-vs-p-govindarajulu-naidu-on-23-september-1965\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madras-vs-p-govindarajulu-naidu-on-23-september-1965#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Madras vs P. Govindarajulu Naidu on 23 September, 1965\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Madras vs P. Govindarajulu Naidu on 23 September, 1965 - 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\/state-of-madras-vs-p-govindarajulu-naidu-on-23-september-1965","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Madras vs P. Govindarajulu Naidu on 23 September, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-p-govindarajulu-naidu-on-23-september-1965","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1965-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-27T22:30:36+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":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-p-govindarajulu-naidu-on-23-september-1965#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-p-govindarajulu-naidu-on-23-september-1965"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Madras vs P. Govindarajulu Naidu on 23 September, 1965","datePublished":"1965-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-27T22:30:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-p-govindarajulu-naidu-on-23-september-1965"},"wordCount":4695,"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\/state-of-madras-vs-p-govindarajulu-naidu-on-23-september-1965#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-p-govindarajulu-naidu-on-23-september-1965","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-p-govindarajulu-naidu-on-23-september-1965","name":"State Of Madras vs P. Govindarajulu Naidu on 23 September, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1965-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-27T22:30:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-p-govindarajulu-naidu-on-23-september-1965#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-p-govindarajulu-naidu-on-23-september-1965"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-p-govindarajulu-naidu-on-23-september-1965#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Madras vs P. Govindarajulu Naidu on 23 September, 1965"}]},{"@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\/222821","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=222821"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/222821\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=222821"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=222821"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=222821"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}