Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The learned Subordinate Judge, Chingelput, held that the suit village was a zamin estate and that, therefore, the said notification was legal and binding on the respondent. On appeal, the High Court of Judicature at Madras held that it was not proved that the said village was a zamin village, but it was a whole inam village. On that finding, it granted the plaintiff a declaration that the notification of the said village as a zamin estate under the Act was illegal and void, as the said village was a whole inam village. Hence the appeal. Learned counsel for the State contended that the said village was a, included in the assets of the zainindari at the time of the permanent settlement, that it continued to be, a part of the said estate till it was abolished under the Act.

The aforesaid provisions may be summarized thus: The Madras Estates Land Act recognizes for the purpose of that Act 5 categories of estates. The Act grouped the said 5 estates under three categories, namely, zamin, under-tenure and inam estates. The estates defined in cls. (a), (b) and (c) of s. 3 (2) of the Madras Estates Land Act, excluding therefrom in under-tenure estate, are classified as zamin estates. An estate falling under the definition in s. 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, excluding therefrom an inam estate which became an estate under the Madras Estates (Third Amendment) Act, 1936, is described as an inam estate under the Act. An estate under the definition of s. 3(2)(e) of the Estates Land Act is brought under the definition of the "under-tenure estate"

(1) (1926) 51 M. L. J. 394. (2) (1930) M. W. N. 945.

It may be mentioned that the distinction between "zamin estate", "inam estate" and "under-tenure estate" made under the Act is relevant, inter alia, for the purpose of payment of compensation. The basis on which compensation payable in respect of an inam estate is to be calculated would yield a larger measure of compensation than that in respect of a zamin estate. In regard to an under-tenure estate, if the under-tenure was created prior to the permanent settlement, the compensation payable would be ,on the basis adopted for zamin estate with certain deductions; if .it was created subsequent to the permanent settlement, the compensation would be on the basis adopted for a zamin estate. In the present case, as the inam was created prior to the permanent settlement, if the contention of the respondent was correct, be would get a higher compensation. That is the reason for this dispute. (See ss. 27, 28, 3 1, 32, 35, 36 and 37 of the Act).

Exhibit B-6 is "B" Register of Sriperumbudur Taluk of Chingleput District. It contains a list of the inam villages. Mothirambedu minor inam is shown in the list as it should be. Mothirambedu village has no place in that list as it was included in the zamindari. The respondent placed before the Court various sale deeds to support his title to the said village. Under Ex. A-6, a saledeed dated September 2, 1919, Haji Usman Sahib sold the exclusive miras of Mothirambedu to Rangachariar. In the sale deed Mothirambedu is described in different places as Miras Mitta, zamin village, Mothirambedu zamin village and Mothirambedu Ega Bhoga Miras zamin. "Ega Bhogam" means in Tamil possession or tenure of village land by one person or family without any co-sharer. No doubt the word "zamin" is ordinarily used to denote the estate of a zamindar, that is the proprietor under the permanent settlement. But the expression " zamindar" is also adopted by some of the inamdars as an honorific term. A mere popular description of an undertenure village as a zamin does not make it a zamin estate under the Act, if it is not one in fact. Indeed, the document shows that in some parts, for instance in Schedule A, Mothirambedu has been described as Ega Bhoga Miras Mothirambedu zamin village and in Schedule B, Melmanambedu village is described as Shrotriem Melmanambedu village, whereas in the preamble to the document Mothirambedu is described as Miras of Mothirambedu, and Melmanambedu, as Zamin Melmanambedu. This shows that the character of the village has not been described with any legal precision. What is more, the character of this village was in dispute in a suit between the zamindar and the tenants in the year 1921. That suit ultimately went up to the High Court and a Division Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of the appeal on November 23, 1927. The judgment is marked as Ex. A-4. Therein the High Court pointed out that the zamindar, who was the appellant, did not produce the sannad nor did he file any old records relating to the zamindari on the ground that they were not available in the Collector's office. The only evidence adduced to support his contention was the fact that in regard to the village fixed assessment was paid from the year 1856 onwards, and that it was referred to in certain Government registers as zamin village. The High Court accepted the finding of the Subordinate Judge that it was not a part of the zamindari. Except the certified copy of the Kabuliat executed by Venkiah, the then zamindar, which does not include this village and the unsigned statement alleged to have been filed in the permanent settlement proceedings, which is not proved no further material evidence has been placed in the present proceedings. We do not see any justification to take a different view from that accepted by the High Court in the year 1927. From the discussion of the aforesaid evidence, the following facts emerge In 1796 Mr. Lionel Place, the then Collector of the Honorable Company's Jagheer, -ranted a cowle to Ranga- swamy Mudali, who was occupying the office of a Nattuvar, conferring on him the mirasi of Mothirambedu village and another village permanently, subject to his paying all just dues. At the time of the making of the permanent settlement in Chingleput District, which was then described as a Jagir, it was decided by the Company to maintain Shrotriem, i.e., grants made to Nattuvars, including those granted by Mr. Lionel Place, and realise their dues through the instrumentality of the zamindar. This policy ",as implemented by including the shrotriems in the zamindari by transferring, the Company's ultimate reversionary lights to the zamindar. The result was that the shrotriem tenure in the hands of the Nattuvars continued after the permanent settlement as it existed prior to it. That is the reason why some times the village was described as zamin village and sometimes as Jari Inam Village. That is also why it was not the subjectmatter of permanent inam settlement. But the fact remains that Shrotriem tenure continued in the hands of the Nattuvar and his successors-in-interest, after the permanent settlement as it was before the said settlement. The tenure under the Government became in under-tenure under the zamindar, as the zamindar intervened between the Government and the Nattuvar. As the village is held under a permanent under-tenure, it falls squarely under the definition of s. 3(2)(e) of the Madras Estates Land Act and is, therefore, an estate thereunder and hence it is an under-tenure estate. As the under-tenure estate is excluded from the definition of "zamin estate", the notification issued by the Government on the basis that t is a zamin estate is void and the High Court rightly declared it as void.