Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The substantial question which has been argued at considerable length is what exactly is the nature of the grant; whether it is a whole inam village coming within the definition of Section 3(2)(d) or only a part of a village.

4. Exhibit P. 1 is a copy of the Inam Register of Cherichintala village, Gudivada taluk, and it is a confirmation by the British Government of the earlier inam. The document begins by stating that what was granted was Cherichintala village. Columns 4 and 5 show that the entire ayacut of the village consists of an area of 620 acres 86 cents out of which 44 acres 96 cents are deducted as poromboke and 43 acres 15 cents are deducted as minor inams. The residue is an area of 532 acres 75 cents which is taken into consideration for the assessment of the quit rent. It is seen from Ex. P. 1 that the original grantee was one Mantravadi Gangadsra Sastrulu to whom the inam was granted in A.D. 1764 and the document also states that it was granted for Bhattavirthi service. Exhibits P. 4 and P. 5 are copies of the Inam Pair Register regarding the minor inams, in the same village which are for the Devastanams of Sri Venugopalaswami and Sri Someswaraswami. Exhibit P. 3 is another minor Bhattavirthi inam granted to one Eokka Narayana. A comparison of Ex. P. 1, Ex. P. 3 and P. 4 shows that at the time of the grant confirmed by Ex. P. 1 there were already three minor inams, one of them a Bhattavrithi and two Devadayams totally in all 43 acres 15 cents carved out of the village. The remaining area of the village including the poromboke was granted to this Mantravadi Gangadara Sastrulu in A. D. 1764 by title deed No. 1247.

We have therefore no hesitation Jn coming to-the conclusion that on a consideration of Ex. P. 1, P. 3, P. 4, P. 5 as well as Ex. D. 1 and D. 2 that what was granted was a named village, viz., Cherichintala, as Bhattavirthi inam though at the time of the grant there had been three other inams already created one of which was a Bhatavarthi inam and the other two Devadayam inams. That the mischief created by the decisions in -- 'AIR 1843 Mad 187 (C)' and --'Surireddi v. Agnihotrudu', AIR 1943 Mad 764 (E), has been corrected and rectified by Madras Act II of 1945 has been subsequently explained in various decisions. We need only refer to a few of them, wherein grants similar to the one which we have to consider in this case have been held to be "estates" even though some portions had already been granted for service or other tenures.

10. But it is argued that even if a named village Is granted still, if the deduction had not been of an inam granted for a service tenure, then the named village would not come within the definition of "estate". In other words, in this case since it is found that under Exs. P. 4 and P. 5 the minor inams are Devadayam inams and as such not service tenures, the remaining area granted as Bhatavrthi inam would not be an "estate". Reliance is placed upon the observations of Mahajan J. In -- 'District Board, Tanjore v. Noor Mohamed', (N), a recent decision of the Supreme Court. At p. 449 of the report his Lordship observes as follows: "The expression 'other tenure' In the explanation should ordinarily be construed ejusdem generis with a service tenure owing to the reason that these service inams usually are resumable and in case of resumable tenures the reversionary right in the land remains in the grantee and therefore even If such resumable tenures are excluded from the grant in substance the grant can be deemed to be of the whole village. The same can be said of lands reserved for communal purposes." Chandrasekhara Aiyar J. the other member of the Bench, expressed himself thus at page 450 of the report:

18. We are fortified in this conclusion because of the wide meaning that has to be given to the word "tenure" which in its generic sense means "holding or possession of land". Giving the words "other tenure" the common significance attached to such words in English language, we do not see any justification for circumscribing the wide ambit of that expression by stating that only holdings of land which are of a personal nature should come within that expression. The contention of the learned counsel that because under Ex. P. 4 and P. 5 two Devadayam inams are excluded from the grant, the major inams would not be an "estate" cannot therefore be accepted.