# GA UDI RAMAMURTHY & ORS v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS

- **Citation:** [1967] 1 S.C.R. 181
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1966-08-26
- **Bench:** K. SUBBA RAo, J. M. Shelat
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ga-udi-ramamurthy-ors-v-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-3810
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Madras Ealates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXVI
of 1948), s. 3(b) and Regulation XXV o/ 1802, s. 4-Estate vesting In
Govermnent under notification issued under Estat~s Abolition Ac1-CerNln lands gronled be/ore pernta11'!nt Settlement partly 111 lieu o/ services
and partly /or rent-Such lands whether excluded from estate under Regulation o/ 1802.
The appellants and respondents 2 w S were owners of Jagga111peta
estate in the East Godavari Dis net of Andhra Pradesh. The ·vantari
Muttah', a piece of land about 400 acres in area, was granted to their
predecessor in interest in return
fQr services as 'vantarlu' or 'foot ser-
\"8llts' long before the permanent settlement.
After the passing of the
Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXVI of
1948 dispute arooe whether the land formed part of the Jaggampeta estate
for if it did not, the Act would not apply to it.
After various stages of
litigatioo a Division Bench of the High Court decided against the
appellants. They came to this Court with special leave.
It was contended on behalf of the '"l'Pellants that the said Muttah
was granted to their predecessor-in.interest before the permanent aettle~
mcnt by the then Zrunindar for public services subject to a payment
of favourable rent, that, subsequently, the services were
discontinued,
but the grant was continued subject to the payment of favourable
rent,
that at the time of the permanent settlement the said Muttah was excluded
from tbe asselli of the Zamindari and that therefore the said Muttah·
was outside "the scope of the
notification issued
by the
Government
under Madras Act XXVI of 1948.
On behalf of the rf8pondent
State
it was urged that •he grant was subject to the payment of the full assessment, that the said assessment was paid partly in cash and partly by
personal services to the Zrunindar, that at the time of the Permaneet
Settlement the said Muttah was included in the assets of the Zamindari
and that as it was a part of the Zamindari the Government at the time of
the Inam Settlement did not take any steps to enfranchise the same.
HEID : (i) Under s. 4 of the Regulation XXV of 1802 the Government was empowered to exclude it'lcome from lakhiraj lands l.e. lands
exempt from payment of public revenue and of all lands paying only
favou-able quit rents, from the assets of the Zamindari at the time of
the ·Permanent Settlement.
If the lands fall squarely within the said
two categories, there is ·a presumption that they were excluded from the
assets of the Zamindari. But if the grant of land was subject to performance' of personal services to the Zamindar or subject
to the pavment of favourable rents and also performance of personal services to
the Z3mindar,
there is no such
presumption.
Indeed the presumption
i• the t in such a case the income from the land was not excluded from
the a;,;sets of the Zamindari. The reason for the rule is that in one case
the personal servioe are equated with the full asse'1sment and in the other
•
181
J82
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
!J967] I S.C.R.
tho favourable rent toge1her wilh. tbe personal services is equaled wilb
A
full assasmeot. If the Zammdar m oo.e shape or another was getting the
fuD W1Se&Omen1 on the lands tliere was no reason why the Government
would havo foreF.• its revenuo by excluding such lands from tho assets
ot the Zamtndan. [185 FJ
Maliaboob SarafarajfiVant Sri Raja ParthasaraJhy Appa Rao Bahadur
Zamindari Garu v. The Secretary of State, (1913) J.L.R. 38 Mad. 620 and
Secretary of Stare '" Rajah Vasireddy, A.l.R. 1929 Mad. 676, referred
B
to.
(ii)· The grant in the prosent case wa• a prc-sett!emen1 grant
The
land was granted to the Vantarlu subjec1 to the payment of' favourahlc
rent and also subject to tho performanco of personal services to tho
Zamindar.
The Government either before tho permanent settlement or
subsoquent thereto never claimed a right to rosume the same.
Indeed
ii was the Zamindar who was giving remissions to the Vantarlu wheneve

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
GA UDI RAMAMURTHY & ORS.
v.
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.
August 26, 1966
[K. SUBBA RAo, C. J. AND J. M. SHELAT, J.]
Madras Ealates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXVI
of 1948), s. 3(b) and Regulation XXV o/ 1802, s. 4-Estate vesting In
Govermnent under notification issued under Estat~s Abolition Ac1-CerNln lands gronled be/ore pernta11'!nt Settlement partly 111 lieu o/ services
and partly /or rent-Such lands whether excluded from estate under Regulation o/ 1802.
The appellants and respondents 2 w S were owners of Jagga111peta
estate in the East Godavari Dis net of Andhra Pradesh. The ·vantari
Muttah', a piece of land about 400 acres in area, was granted to their
predecessor in interest in return
fQr services as 'vantarlu' or 'foot ser-
\"8llts' long before the permanent settlement.
After the passing of the
Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXVI of
1948 dispute arooe whether the land formed part of the Jaggampeta estate
for if it did not, the Act would not apply to it.
After various stages of
litigatioo a Division Bench of the High Court decided against the
appellants. They came to this Court with special leave.
It was contended on behalf of the '"l'Pellants that the said Muttah
was granted to their predecessor-in.interest before the permanent aettle~
mcnt by the then Zrunindar for public services subject to a payment
of favourable rent, that, subsequently, the services were
discontinued,
but the grant was continued subject to the payment of favourable
rent,
that at the time of the permanent settlement the said Muttah was excluded
from tbe asselli of the Zamindari and that therefore the said Muttah·
was outside "the scope of the
notification issued
by the
Government
under Madras Act XXVI of 1948.
On behalf of the rf8pondent
State
it was urged that •he grant was subject to the payment of the full assessment, that the said assessment was paid partly in cash and partly by
personal services to the Zrunindar, that at the time of the Permaneet
Settlement the said Muttah was included in the assets of the Zamindari
and that as it was a part of the Zamindari the Government at the time of
the Inam Settlement did not take any steps to enfranchise the same.
HEID : (i) Under s. 4 of the Regulation XXV of 1802 the Government was empowered to exclude it'lcome from lakhiraj lands l.e. lands
exempt from payment of public revenue and of all lands paying only
favou-able quit rents, from the assets of the Zamindari at the time of
the ·Permanent Settlement.
If the lands fall squarely within the said
two categories, there is ·a presumption that they were excluded from the
assets of the Zamindari. But if the grant of land was subject to performance' of personal services to the Zamindar or subject
to the pavment of favourable rents and also performance of personal services to
the Z3mindar,
there is no such
presumption.
Indeed the presumption
i• the t in such a case the income from the land was not excluded from
the a;,;sets of the Zamindari. The reason for the rule is that in one case
the personal servioe are equated with the full asse'1sment and in the other
•
181
J82
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
!J967] I S.C.R.
tho favourable rent toge1her wilh. tbe personal services is equaled wilb
A
full assasmeot. If the Zammdar m oo.e shape or another was getting the
fuD W1Se&Omen1 on the lands tliere was no reason why the Government
would havo foreF.• its revenuo by excluding such lands from tho assets
ot the Zamtndan. [185 FJ
Maliaboob SarafarajfiVant Sri Raja ParthasaraJhy Appa Rao Bahadur
Zamindari Garu v. The Secretary of State, (1913) J.L.R. 38 Mad. 620 and
Secretary of Stare '" Rajah Vasireddy, A.l.R. 1929 Mad. 676, referred
B
to.
(ii)· The grant in the prosent case wa• a prc-sett!emen1 grant
The
land was granted to the Vantarlu subjec1 to the payment of' favourahlc
rent and also subject to tho performanco of personal services to tho
Zamindar.
The Government either before tho permanent settlement or
subsoquent thereto never claimed a right to rosume the same.
Indeed
ii was the Zamindar who was giving remissions to the Vantarlu whenever
C
their services were not required.
There is a presumption that such a
land was not excluded from the assets of the Zamindari and the evidence
adduced in the case not only did
not rebul that pr.,,;umption bul
also
to some extent supported it. Tho Division Bench of the High Coun was
therefore right in holding that the Vantari Mullah was part of the estate
of the appellanls and respondents 2 to 5 and was therefore, covered by
tho notification i<'ued by the Go,·ernment under the &1a1cs Abolition
D
Act, 1948. [189 DJ
CIVIL APJ>ELLATF. JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 501of1964.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
February 27, 1961 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in S. P.A.
No. 137 of 1959.
R. Ganapathy Iyer, for the appellant.
P. Ram Reddy and T. V. R. Tatachari, for respondent No. I.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Sobba Rao, C. J. This appeal by special leave raises the question,
whether the land described as "Vantari Muttah" in Talluru village
was included in the assets of Jaggampeta A and D Zamindari
estates. in Peddapuram taluk,
East Godavari District, Andhra
Prallesh, at the time of the Permanent Settlement.
The undisputed facts may be
bri~fly narrated. The said
Muttah comprises an area of 50 puttis. i.e. about 400 acres, and
five tanks are situate therein. The said Mullah was j!ranted to
the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants and respondents 2 to
5 long before the Permanent Settlement in consideration of payment
of Kuttubadi of a sum of Rs. 620'-. At the time of Inam Settlement, it was not enfranchised by the
Government. After the
Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act
XXVI of 1948 was passed, on September 22, 1952, by a notification
issued thereunder, the Government took over t.he Jaggampeta
Estate.
Jn April 1953, \\·hen the appellants and respondents .2 10 5
E
F
G
H
·•
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
...
H
RAMAMUR.THY v. A. P. STATE (Subba Rao, C.J.)
183
tried to effect repairs to the tanks, the village munsif of Talluru
under instructions from the 1st respondent, obstructed them from
doing so. Thereupon, the appellants filed 0. S. No. 269 of 1953
in the Court of the District Munsif, Peddapuram, against the State
of Andhra and others for a declaration that the 1st respondent,
had no right io the said tanks and for an injunction restraining
it and its subordinates from interfering with their rights in the said
tanks. The 1st respondent resisted the suit
inter a/ia on two
grounds, namely, (i) the entire Vantari Muttah was included in
the assets of the said estate of Jaggampeta at the time of the
Permanent Settlement, and (ii) in any view, under the grant, the
predecessor-in;interest of the appellants and respondents 2 to 5
was given only the land and not the tanks therein. The learned
District Munsif upheld the claim of the appellants to the said tanks
and decreed the suit. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge
Kakinada, held that the said land was included in the assets of tke
Zarnindari at the time of the Permanent Settlement and, on that
finding,. he dismissed the suit. On further appeal, Kumarayya,
J. of the Andhra Pradesh High Court agreed with the learned
District Munsif. But, on Letters Patent appeal, a Division Be11ch
of the High Court, consisting of Chandra Reddy, C. J. and Chandrasekhara Sastry, J., agreed· with the learned Subordinate Judge.
The result was that the suit of the appellants was dismissed with
costs throughout. Hence the present appeal.
On the pleadings, two questions arose for consideration,
namely, (i) whether the Muttah was included in the assets of the
Zamindari at the time of the Permanent Settlement, and (ii) even
if the said Muttah was excluded from the assets of the Zamindari,
whether the original grant comprised the tanks,
The· second point need not detain us, for, though Kumarayya,
J. held on the said point in favour of the appellants, the Division
Bench did not express any opinion thereon, in view of its decision
on the first point. As we are agreeing with the Division Bench on
the first point, it is not necessary for .us to express our opinion on
the second point.
Apropos the first point,
Mr. R.
Ganapathy Iyer, learned
counsel for the appellants, contended that the said Muttah was
granted to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants and respondents 2 to 5 long before the Permanent Settlement by the
then Zamindar for public services, subject to a payment of favourable
rent, that, subsequently, the services were discontinued, but the
grant was continued subject to the payment of favourable rent,
that at the time of the Permanent Settlement the said Muttah was
excluded from the assets of the Zamindari and that, therefore, the
said Muttah was outside the scope of the notification issued by the
Government under Madras Act XXVI of 1948.
184
SUPREMI! COURT REPORTS
[1967] I S.C.R.
Mr. P. Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the !st respondent,
A
the State of Andh;a Pradesh, argued that the grant was subject
to the payment of the full assessment, that the said assessment
was paid partly in cash and partly by personal services to the Zarnindar, that at the time of the Pennanent Settlement the liaid Muttah
was included in the assets of the Zamindari and that, as it was a
part of the Zamindari, the Government, even at the time of the
B
lnam Settlement, did not take_ any steps to enfranchise
the
same.
Before we advert to the evidence, it will be convenient to notice
briefly, at this stage, the relevant law on the subject.
Under s. 3(b) of the Estates Abolition Act, the entire estate, c
including imer alia the tanks, shall stand transferred to the Government and vest in it free of all encumbrances. This section would
be attracted only if the suit land was part of an estate a! defined
under the Act. It cannot be disputed that if the land was included
in the assets of the estate at the time of the Permanent Settlement,
it would be a part of the estate. Section 4 of Regulation XXV
of 1802 enabled the Government to exclude from the said assets.
D
certain items. Under the relevant part of the said section, the GoYemmont was empowered to exclude from the assets of the Zamindari at the time of the Permanent Settlement "lands exempt from
the payment of public revenue and of all other lands paying only
favourable quit rents". Besides these two categories of grants of
lands, namely, lands exempt from payment of public revenue and
E
lands paying only favourable quit rents, there was another category of lands which were granted subject to the payment of favourable quit rents and also subject to the performance of certain services.
The said services might be public or private services, i.e.,
services to the community or services to the grantor. The third
category of land was the subject matter of decision in Mahaboob
F
Sarafarajawant Sri Raja Parthasarathy Appa Rao Bahadur Zamindari Garu v. The Secretary of State('). Where lands in a 1.amindari were pre-settlement inams granted on condition of rendering
personal service to the zamindar and paying a favourable quit
rent, the Madras High Court held that as the grant was for services purely personal to the zamindar, prima fade the inams formed part of the assets of the zamindari. The reason for this rule
G
of presumption was stated by Sankaran Nair, J. thus:
"According to these cases, therefore, when lands were
held on condition that the holders were to render certain
services which were purely personal to the Zamindar and
in which the Government were not interested, i.e., when
such services had nothing to do with police or magisterial
duties, or did not concern the community or the villagers,
--- .. ·-·-
(t) (1913) I.LR. Madras 62", 632.
H
..
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
RAMAMURTHY l'. A. P. STATE (Subba Rao, C.J.)
185
then the Government were entitled to include in the zamindari, assets for setting the peshkash the income from the
lands allowed in lieu of such services which were not allowed
for in the settlement; there is therefore no presumption they
did not do so or treated the land as free from payment."
If the services were purely personal to the zamindari, there was no
reason · why the Government would not have included the
land in the assets of the zamindari for the purpose for fixing the
peshkash. The same result was arrived at by a different process.
Under s. 4 of Regulation XXV of 1802, lands paying only favourable
quit rents might be excluded from the assets of the zamindari.
If the grantee paid part of the assessment in cash and part in the
shape of personal services to the zamindari, it cannot be said that
he held the lands paying only favourable quit rent to the zamindar. The aspect was brought out with clarity by Venkatasubba
Rao, J., in Secretary of State v. Raiah Vasireddy( 1). Therein,
the learned Judge said thus :
"In the case of personal service inams, was there
any reason at the time ·of the permanent settlement for
treating them as "lands exempt from the payment of public
revenue ?" The zamindar was receiving income from
such lands, though not of course in the shape of cash-rent
but in the shape of services; for the rendering of services
was one mode of paying the rent. It was reasonable
therefore, to treat them at the settlement as revenue paying
lands."
The legal position may therefore put thus; Under s.-4 of Regulation XXV of 1802 the Government was empowered to exclude
income from lakhiraj lands, i.e., lands exempt from payment of
public revenue and of all lands paying only ra;ourable quit rents,
from the assets of the zamindari at the time of the permanent
settlement. If the lands fall squarely within the said two categories,
there is a presumption that they were excluded from the asse'. s of
the zamindari. But if the grant of land was subject to performance
of personal services to the zamindar or subject to the payment
of favourable rents and also performance of personal service to
the zamindar, there is no such presumption. Indeed, the presumption is that in such a case the income from the land was not excluded from the assets of the zamindari. The reason for the rule
is that in one case the personal services are equated with the full
assessment and in the other the favourable rent together with the
personal services is equated with full assessment. If the zamindar in one shape or another was getting the full assessment on the
lands, there was no reason why the Government would have fqre-
(1) A.I.R. 1929 Madras 676, 682.
M14Sup.Cl/66-13
186
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1967] 1 s.c.R.
gone its revenue by excluding such lands from the assets of the
umindari.
With this background, let us look at the documentary evidence
adduced in the case. The relevant grant is not produced. The
permanent settlement accounts are not before us. The sanad is
not placed on the evidence. Indeed, no document of a date prior
to the permanent settlement is exhibited. The question falls to
be decided only on the basis of the documents that came into
existence subsequent to t.he permanent settlement.
Ex. A-3 is a Kai fiat dated April 22, 1818 pertaining to 'manyams'
in the village of Jaggampadu. The relevant part of the document
reads :
"Thimmaraju Maharajulungaru got debited in the
accounts of the said village, and granted towards maintenance of Malireddy Gopalu for his service.
He (Raja) fixed three hundred and fifty varahas
and continued it so in the same manner receiving service
from him.
Afterwards Ammannagaru settled that cash has
to be paid to the aforesaid 'diwanam' (estate) and that
the remaining shall be enjoyed as long ?S the service is done
to the abovementioned people. In that manner it was enjoyed till last year. For the current year it was done as
'Amani' (Government supervision)."
This document shows that the grantee and his heirs were to
enjoy the land so long as service was done to the Raja. The expression "abovementioned people" can only refer to the Raja.
The service, therefore, was only personal service to the Raja.
Ex.A-4 is an order of the District Collector of Rajahmundry
to the Estate Amin or Jaggampeta. This letter is dated September
5, 1829. This document shows that the agent of the Raja complained
to
the
Collector that
the
Vantarlu of Thalluri
village were granted lands assessed to a kist of Rs. 2140, that
for their service the late Raja granted remission of Rs. 620,
that they were paying every year the balance amount to the Raja,
that after the death of the late Raja they did not present themselveo
to the minor Raja but were doing service to some other zamindar
and that, therefore, an order might be issued directing them· to
pay to the then Raja the entire assessment. On the basis of that
request, the Collector directed the Amin to make the necessary
enquiries. This document clearly shows that the Zamindar's
agent asserted as early as 1928 that the Vantarl u were given remisA
B
c
D
E
,
F
G
H
• I
A
B
c
D
E
•
I!
G
H
RAMAMURTHY v. A. I'. STATE (Subba Rao, CJ.)
187
sion by the zamindar only for doing personal services to him. The
complaint made by the agent that the Vantarlu, instead of doing
services to· the minor Raja and attending on him, were doing services to another zamindar is a clear indication that the services
mentioned in th.at order were the personal services to the Raja.
Reliance was placed on the statement in the said order "did not
even give a reply to the message sent to them during the time of
the dacoities and disturbances occurred recently, asking them to
be present before him" and contended that the services mentioned
therein were the services for the purpose of putting down dacoities
and disturbances, which were services to the community. The
said statement only describes when the notice was sent and not
the nature of the services. Even if it described the nature of the
services, their personal attendance on the Raja during the troubled
times could not make them any the less personal services to him ..
It was also said that the fact that the Collector's interference was
sought was indicative of the public nature of the services. The
Collector in those days was a person of power and prestige in a
district and there was nothing unusual in a zamindar seeking his
help in the matter of collecting his dues from recalcitrant serviceholders.
Ex. A-5 is an order dated December II, 1829 issued by the
Collector of Rajahmundry to the Amin of Jaggampeta estate in
pursuance of a petition filed by the Manager of the estate. Assertions similar to those found in Ex. A-4 were made by the .Manager
of the Estate in the petition filed by him to the Collector which is
referred to in Ex. A-5 .
Ex. A-7 is a petition dated April 24, 1830 filed by the Vantarlu
of Thalluru village io the Enquiry Collector, Rajahmundry. In
that petition it was admitted that the Raja granted a land to them
assessed to a kist of 310 varahas for the.ir living, that they were
doing services to the Samastanam, that after the death of the Raja,
his widow told them that she would adopt a boy and that during
his minority their services were not required but in view of their
past services to her ancestors she would allow them to enjoy the
land only on payment of half the assessment. After narrating
all the subsequent events; the petitioners went on to say :
"From the time when Lakshminarasayya , got the
'nimebadi' done in that manner, we the sharers by obtaining the goodwill of Sri Raja Vatchavayi Venkatapathigaru,
got the present and were paying 155 varahs to the. estate
and were in enjoyment of 50 putties of land assessed to a
kist of Rs. 310/- as 'vasathi'."
This petition also supports the case of the Government that the
Vantarlu were doing personal services to the zamindar and that
it was the zamindar who gave a remission of assessment in lieu
of their services. The fact that Lakshminarasayya dispensed witb
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1967] l S.C.R.
the services of the Vantarlu during the minority of the adopted
son shows that the services were only personal to the zamindar,
for, if they were public services, the fact that the zamindar was a
minor would be irrelevant.
The learned counsel for the appellants contended on the basis
of this document that whatever might be the conditions of the
!,'Tant at the time of its origin before the permanent settlement,
the zamindar put an end to the services and confirmed the grant
subject to the payment of favourable quit rent and, therefore, the
grant squarely fell within the scope of s. 4 of the said Regulation
(XXV of 1802).
But this document contains only an assertion
on the part of the Vantarlu : and even if that assertion be true,
it would only show that Lakshminarasayya did not dispense with
the services for good but only exempted the Vantarlu from doing
the services till the minor zamindar attained majority.
Ex. A-16 dated November 9, 1831, Ex. A-17 dated February
27, I 832 and Ex. A-18 dated March 8, 1833 arc similar orders
i~sued by the Collector to the Amin of Jaggampeta. They contain
recitals similar to those contained in Exs. A-3, A-4 and A-5.
Ex. A-10 is an order dated July 7, 1831 issued by the Collector to the Amin of Jaggampeta. Therein, when the Manager of
the e>tate resumed the land and gave it to another on the ground
that the Vantarlu were not paying the assessments, the Collector
directed that they should be put back in possession of the said
land.
But, in doing so, the Collector did not say that the Zamindar had no right to resume the land but only observed that it did
not do any credit to the estate to dispossess Muttadars of the land
and eranr it to sc,me one else. This document does not throw much
light-on the question raised before us.
lastly, we have the fact that the Government did
not take
any steps to enfranchise the land. For the default of the Government, no doubt the appellants cannot be made to
suffer.
But
that circumstance probabliscs the contention of the Government
that the Muttah was not included in the assets of the 1.amindari,
for, if included it is not likely that the Government would
not
have enfranchised it and imposed assessment thereon.
Strong reliance was placed on the expressions
"Vantarlu"
and "man yam" found in some of the documents and an
argument "as made that the said expressions indicated that the services were public services. The c.xpression "manyam" is
found
in Ex .A-3. In Wilson's Glossary "manyam" is defined thus :
"Land in the south of India, held either at a low assessment, or altogether free, in
consideration of services
done to the state or community, as in the case of the officers
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
RAMAMURTHY ,,, A. P. STATE (Subba Rao, C.J.)
189
and servants of a village .......... the term is also laxly
applied to any free grant or perquisite held in hereditary
right by members ·of a village community."
The expression "manyam" does not, therefore, necessarily mean
.a grant for public services. It is also used in a loose sense to
indicate an inam. That apart, the word "manyam" is only found
in a Kaifiat of 1818 and in no other ducument it finds a place.
Be
that as it may, such an ambiguo"\ls expression in a solitary document which came into existence in 1818 cannot outweigh the other
evidence which we have considered in detail. Nor does the expression "Vantarlu" indicate public servants. It means "footservants"; it may also be used to denote a sepoy. Whatever
may be its meaning, the name is not decisive of the nature of the
service. A foot-servant or a sepoy could certainly do personal
service to a zamindar : he might look after his safety.
The following facts emerge from a consideration of the documentary evidence. The grant was a pre-settlement grant.
The
land was granted to the Vantarlu subject to the payment of favourable rent and also subject to· the performance of personal services
to the zamindar. The Government, either before the permanent
settlement or subsequent thereto, never claimed a right to resume
the same. Indeed, it was the zamindar who was giving remissions
to the Yantarlu whenever their services were not required. There
is a presumption that such a land was not excluded from the assets
of the zamindari and the evidence adduced in the case not only
does not rebut that presumption but also, to some extent, supports
it. We, therefore, agree with the Division Bench of the High
Court holding that the Vantari Muttah of the appellants was part
of the Jaggartlpeta estate and was, therefore, covered by the
notification issued by the Government under the Estates Abolition Act, 1948.
In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs of
the first respondent.
G.C.
Appeal dismissed.