# NEDUNVRIKAMESWARAMMA v. SAMPATI SUBBA RAO

- **Citation:** [1963] 2 S.C.R. 208
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1963
- **Bench:** M. Hidayatullah, J . c. SHAH
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/nedunvrikameswaramma-v-sampati-subba-rao-2675
- **Pages:** 19

## Headnote

FknJing-WritUn atatement not trat:erred-Rtlnant W..e
n,,, railed but material etmknce led by ,,,artiP.a-Efftd-Con1trudio11 or d,cvmrnl, when involvea ~e of law-Kanai/cam
1erviu inam -Dumbala Dharmila inam-Madraa Fermanent
Settk1i.ent Regulation of 1802 ( M odraa Rtgulation 25 of 1802;
-Madraa KarnatM Regula.lion 1802 (Madrcu /frgulation 29 of
1802)-MadrlU Hertditar1 Villagt OJJiua Act, 1895 (Mad. III of
1895). TM. MadrtU Proprietary E11taU'1 Village Service Act, 1894
(Jlacl. II of 1894) •· 17.
The appellant 6lcd a suit for ejcctment of the respondent
from 4·80 acres of jeroyti land and for mcsnc profit, which
wa1 based on a kadapa executed by the respondent in 1951,
agreeing to pay an annual rent, and to vacate the land praccfully at the end of the year of tenancy. Similar kadapaa were
executed in earlier yean. The respondent denird that the
land was jeroyti land aod alleged that it was a part of Dliarmilca inam \and granted to his predecessors more than I 00
years &JfO though m1"hilaktu were taken every year, and claimed hdiK'Of'Om rights for him~lf.
He contended that the
appellant had only melwaram rights which ahe had lost a1 they
'
• --
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
209
became vested in t!,e Government after the Estate Abolition
Act. The appellant did not seek permission of the court to
file a rejoinder to the pleas of the respondent, and the trial
proceeded without raising any issue with regard to the subject
of Dharmila inam. The trial court found that the land was
originally karnikam service inam, which was resumed by the
Zamindar in 1925 and regranted as jeroyti land. On appeal
a ·ground wa1 raised that the respondent was prejudiced
because the decision was given without any pleas or isst1e that
the land was a Karnikam service inam. The first appellate
court found against the respondent but the High Court held
that the suit deserved to be dismissed , on the short ground
that the decision of the two courts below proceeded on a
matter not pleaded or raised as an issue; and held further that
the 'land was a Karnikam service inam and dismissed the
suit.
The appellants came up by special leave to the Supreme
Court. The questions are : (a) whether the suit should be
dismissed on the ground or want or proper plea by the appellant in answer to the written statement and (b) whether the
decision that this was not a Karnikam service inam is proper
in the circumstances of the case.
Held, that since each party went to trial fully knowing
the rival 'case and Jed all the evidence not only in support of
its own contentions but in refutation of those of the other
side, it cannot be said that the absence of an issue was fatal
to the case, or that there was that mistrial which vitiates
proceedings, and the case could not be decided on this nanow
ground.
After the passing of Madras Act II of 1894, Karnamas
were to be paid in cash and s. I 7 of the Act enabled the
enfranchisement of lands granted on favourable terms to the
Karnama&; Such lands could be granted for village service
either by the State or by the proprietor. The gist of s. 17 was
that lands granted for the rem9neration of the Karnamae were
to be restimed by the State if granted by the State, and by the
proprietor, if granted by the proprietors and the second
proviso to s. 17 was not limited to village artisans or village
servants doing· private service but embraced other village
servants like Karnamae and others.
Held, that from 1903 'to 1925 the suit land was treated
as held on Karnam service inam liable to be resumed bv the
i,
Zamindar, that in all the subsequent documents, it. was
-:i.. described as jeroyti land, and that the land was held as
K arnikam service inam on the date of resumption, and that
1962
.Nedunuri
Kameswaramma
v.
S,mp ti Suoba Rao
I Ht
N•iwnuri
K 1nusw.,•mmo
•
S•'1tl'JH s,,bho R'"'
210
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1963]
it was granted as jeroyti land after resumption of the Karnikam service in am.
Held, also, tha~ a construction of document; (unless they
are ~

## Text

lift
a .... ,,;, Jt.J
l'e.111'i¥4
••
.J. K. ·1tdl JI ilu
C •. -'t4., K•npw
H i4~tt.llaA J .
llll -
4prtJ 17:
208
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]
sought is in reapeot of execution against tbe personal property of Buch partner and the leave that
is granted or refused affect only Buch property and
not the prop,,rty of the firm. Ordinarily, when
the person summoned admits that be is a partner,
leave would be granted, unless he alleges coHueion,
fraud or the like.
No such question has been
raised in this case, and the decision given by the
High Court connot be disturbed.
·
The appeal fails, and is dismissed with costa.
Appeal dismisat.d.
NEDUNVRIKAMESWARAMMA
v.
SAMPATI SUBBA RAO
(S. K. D.a.s, M. HIDAYATULLAH and
J . c. SHAH, JJ.)
FknJing-WritUn atatement not trat:erred-Rtlnant W..e
n,,, railed but material etmknce led by ,,,artiP.a-Efftd-Con1trudio11 or d,cvmrnl, when involvea ~e of law-Kanai/cam
1erviu inam -Dumbala Dharmila inam-Madraa Fermanent
Settk1i.ent Regulation of 1802 ( M odraa Rtgulation 25 of 1802;
-Madraa KarnatM Regula.lion 1802 (Madrcu /frgulation 29 of
1802)-MadrlU Hertditar1 Villagt OJJiua Act, 1895 (Mad. III of
1895). TM. MadrtU Proprietary E11taU'1 Village Service Act, 1894
(Jlacl. II of 1894) •· 17.
The appellant 6lcd a suit for ejcctment of the respondent
from 4·80 acres of jeroyti land and for mcsnc profit, which
wa1 based on a kadapa executed by the respondent in 1951,
agreeing to pay an annual rent, and to vacate the land praccfully at the end of the year of tenancy. Similar kadapaa were
executed in earlier yean. The respondent denird that the
land was jeroyti land aod alleged that it was a part of Dliarmilca inam \and granted to his predecessors more than I 00
years &JfO though m1"hilaktu were taken every year, and claimed hdiK'Of'Om rights for him~lf.
He contended that the
appellant had only melwaram rights which ahe had lost a1 they
'
• --
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
209
became vested in t!,e Government after the Estate Abolition
Act. The appellant did not seek permission of the court to
file a rejoinder to the pleas of the respondent, and the trial
proceeded without raising any issue with regard to the subject
of Dharmila inam. The trial court found that the land was
originally karnikam service inam, which was resumed by the
Zamindar in 1925 and regranted as jeroyti land. On appeal
a ·ground wa1 raised that the respondent was prejudiced
because the decision was given without any pleas or isst1e that
the land was a Karnikam service inam. The first appellate
court found against the respondent but the High Court held
that the suit deserved to be dismissed , on the short ground
that the decision of the two courts below proceeded on a
matter not pleaded or raised as an issue; and held further that
the 'land was a Karnikam service inam and dismissed the
suit.
The appellants came up by special leave to the Supreme
Court. The questions are : (a) whether the suit should be
dismissed on the ground or want or proper plea by the appellant in answer to the written statement and (b) whether the
decision that this was not a Karnikam service inam is proper
in the circumstances of the case.
Held, that since each party went to trial fully knowing
the rival 'case and Jed all the evidence not only in support of
its own contentions but in refutation of those of the other
side, it cannot be said that the absence of an issue was fatal
to the case, or that there was that mistrial which vitiates
proceedings, and the case could not be decided on this nanow
ground.
After the passing of Madras Act II of 1894, Karnamas
were to be paid in cash and s. I 7 of the Act enabled the
enfranchisement of lands granted on favourable terms to the
Karnama&; Such lands could be granted for village service
either by the State or by the proprietor. The gist of s. 17 was
that lands granted for the rem9neration of the Karnamae were
to be restimed by the State if granted by the State, and by the
proprietor, if granted by the proprietors and the second
proviso to s. 17 was not limited to village artisans or village
servants doing· private service but embraced other village
servants like Karnamae and others.
Held, that from 1903 'to 1925 the suit land was treated
as held on Karnam service inam liable to be resumed bv the
i,
Zamindar, that in all the subsequent documents, it. was
-:i.. described as jeroyti land, and that the land was held as
K arnikam service inam on the date of resumption, and that
1962
.Nedunuri
Kameswaramma
v.
S,mp ti Suoba Rao
I Ht
N•iwnuri
K 1nusw.,•mmo
•
S•'1tl'JH s,,bho R'"'
210
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1963]
it was granted as jeroyti land after resumption of the Karnikam service in am.
Held, also, tha~ a construction of document; (unless they
are ~ocuments of title). pr0dHced . by the parties to prove a
question of fact docs not involve an issue of law, unless it can
h<: shown that the material evidence contained therein was
rws-undentood by the Court of fact.
Held, further, that a concession made by counsel either
by tnistake or by ignr.1rancc on a point of law is not binding
on the client.
Civ!L APPKLLATE Jua1so1CTION : Civil Appeal ~,
No. 233 of 1960.
Appeal by Apecfa.I leave from the judgment
and decree da.ted September 4, 1958, of the Andhra.
.
Pradesh High Court in Second
Appeal No. 633
of .1955.
A. Ranganadham Chelty, A. l'. Rangam a.nd
T. Satyanarayana for the Appellimt.
K. Bhimaaankaram and r. V. R. TalCUJhari for
•
the Respondent.
r--
1962, April 17. The Judgment of the Court
wa.e delivered by
HIDAYATULLAll, .J.-This is an i<ppea.l
with
speoial leave a.gs.inst a. judgment in F.econd appeal
of the High Court of ;\ndhra Pradesh, by which a
suit filed by the.appellant was ordered to be dismissed, thus reversing the judgments and decrees
:"'
of the two Courts below.
The suit was simple, but as it went on fr()m
appeal to appeal, it has widened out. It was filed
by the appellant for ejectmcnt of. the respondent
fi:'1Jm 4·80
acres of jermJli
land bearing R. S.
No. 186/1-:! in Ncdunum Village and for mesne
profits.
The suit wus based on kadapa executed by
the respondent agreeing to pay an annual rent of.~,
OB bags of Jiaddy and a sum ol Rs. 38/- towards·
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
211
thirwa and ceases, the appellant undertaking to ·pay
thejeroyti tax. The respondent agreed to vacate
tha land peacefully at the end of the year of
tenancy. This kailapa is Ex, A-1 dated April 4, 1951.
Similarly, yearly kadapas were executed ·in earlier
years, and some of them executed between 1931
and 1948 were also produced in the case.
The_ respondent, however, raised many pleas.
He denied that the land was jeroyti land, alleged
that it was part of a Dharmila inam land bearing
R. S. No. 186/1·2, that the ina.m was granted• to
the appellant's predecessors more than 100 yea.rs
ago, that the respondent's ancestors . were ryots of
that land from the very beginning, though muchalikas
were taken from them every year and were executed
by him and also his predecessors out of ignorance
and under threats. The respondent · c!A.imed the
kudiwaram rights for himself and av<irred that the
appellant had only the melwaram rights which she
lost, as they became vested in the Government
after the Estates Abolition Act. He, therefore,
contended that the appellant was now entitled only
to a right to compensation, but had no right to the
ktuliwaram or the right to bring the present suit.
The respondent also alleged that the appellant's
husband who was a karnam bad himself made
entries in the .A.dangal 11ccounts which he maintained,
showing the suit land as Dharmi'la inam.
The appellant did not seek permission of the
Court to file a rejoinder to the pleas of the respon·
dent, but must be taken to have denied them. , It
a.ppeara that in the trial her stand was that this
was not a Barvadumbala inam but a Kamikam
service.inam, i.e., an inam in lieu of wages for
village service, which was resumed by the Za.minda.r
of Pitha.puram, who granted a jeroyti patta (Ex. A-5)
on September I, 1925 to Va.kkalankll. Venka.ta.subbarayudu, the predecessor of the appellant. The
question whioh was thus tried by the District MuDBif,
1111
N1iunu1i
Iram1stD•amm•
v.
Sampali 8ub6a Bao
Hido;atullah J,
J9GI
Ntdunuri
Konuswar.imma
••
S ompall Subbo Rr10
Hi""1•tull•h '·
212
SUPREME OOURT Rll:PORTS [1963)
Amala.puram, embraced an issue as to whether the
suit land was a Dumbal,a Dharmil,a inam before 1925
and had continued till the Estates Abolition Act
was passed and enforced, or whctbi>r it was a
Karnikam service inam granted by the Zaminda.r of
Pithapurem, who could and did reaume it in 1925
regranting the land to Vakkalanka Venkataeub;
barayudu. It is clear that if the suit land was a
Dliarmila Dumbal,a inam, tho appellant would have
bad only melwaram rights, which sh11 must be deemed to have lost under the Estates Abolition Act, and
consequently the respondent would now be considered to have become a ryot. If the suit land was a
Karnikam service ina.m, then the resumption by the
Zamindar of Pithapuram in 1925 would be valid
and the regrant to Venkatasubbarayudu would
make him a tenant and the respondent, a sub-tenant
liable to ejectment according to the terms of the
kad.apa executed by him. Unfortunately, by reason
of the fact that the plea.a on the subject of Dharmil,a
inam were exclusively raised in the written statement, which pleas were not traversed by the appellant, the issue framed was :
"whether the suit land is Dharmi/,a inam,
and if 10, whether the suit in ejeotment is
maintainable ?"
The illBues whether the land
wa1 a Kamikam
service ina.m and whether there was a valid resumption and a valid re-grant, were not framed.
Before
the District Munsif, Amalapuram, however, parties
Jed their evidence on the issue, as if it embraced
all the other iseues not specifically framed.
Twice
the C&Be was reopened to give the respondent a
chance to lead more evidence, though even so late
wr·that, no attempt was made to get the issue
modified or the proper pleadings to be made.
After the District Munsif jecreed the suit, a ground. .:-'
was raised before the Subordinate Judge, Amalapuram in appeal that the respondent had been
. .
~·
2 s.c.R.
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS
213
prejudiced, because the decision was given without
any plea or issue that this was a Karnikam service
inam, which decision lay at the root of the decree.
The learned Subordinate Judge in the appeal before
him held that the absence of the issue regarding the
Karnikam service inam had not prejudiced' the
respondent, who had himself set up a case of
Dharmila inam and had also met the case of a
Karnikam service inam and had filed documents
and led evidence in refutation of the other case. He
upheld the decision of the District Munsif that this
was a Karnikam service inam, and he confirmed
the decree passed by him. On second appeal, the
learned single Judge in the judgment under appeal
held that the suit deserved to be dismissed on the
short ground that the decision of the two Courts
below proceeded on a matter not pleaded or raised
as an issue. He, however, went on to consider
whether the land in question was a Sarvadumbala
Dho<[mila inam or a Karnikam service inam, and
came to the conclusion that the two Courts below
were wrong in holding that it was a · Karnikam
service inam. He, therefore, allowed the appeal,
and ordered the dismissal of the suit.
In this appeal with special leave, only two
questions arise, and they at·e (a) whether .the suit
should be dismissed on the ground of want of proper
pleas by the appellant in answer to the writte~
statement, and (b) whether the decision that this
was not a Karnikam service inam is proper in the
circumstances of this case.
On the first point, we do not see how the suit
could be ordered to be disinissed, for, on the facts
of the case, a remit was clearly indicated. The
appellant hl\d already pleaded that this w11s jeroyti
land, in which a patw in favour of her predecessors
exis.ted, and had based the suit on a kadapa, which
showed a sub-tenancy. It was. Uie respoudent
1902
Nedunurl
KamesW.rmnma
••
Sampati Subba Roo
Hidayatulla1 ;J.
IHI
Nf,~ri
K lh1!uw.1r Jmrn 1
Y,
S•mP "' S db• Rru
Hi~ J<Jh,UahJ.
214
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1963]
who ha.d
pleaded tba.t this
wa.s
a.
D11armifa
inam a.nd not jercryti la.nd,
a.nd
that he
wa.s
in poa.session of the kudiwaram rights thou11:h his
predecessors for
over a. hundred yea.re, . a.nd ba.d
beoome an ocoupa.noy tenant. Though the a.ppella.nt ha.d not mentioned a. Karnikam servioe ina.m,
parties well understood that the two oases opposed
to ea.ch other were of Dharmila Sarvadumbala ina.m
a.a a.go.inst a. K arnikam service inam. The evidence
which has been led in the ca.se elenrly showed tha.t
the respondent attempted to prove that this we.~ I\
Dharmi/,a inam and to refute that this wa.s a. Karni'.-
kam service ina.m.
No doubt, no issue wa.s fra.mod,
a.nd the one, which we.a framed, could ha.ve been
more elaborate ; but since tho parties went to trial
fully knowing the rival case and led a.11 the evidence
not only in support of their contentions but in
refutation of those of the other side, it cannot be
said that the absence of an issue we.a fate.I to the
oa.se, or that there was tha.t mis·tria.l whioh vitiates
proceedings. We a.re, therefore, of opinion tha.t the
suit could not be dismissed on this narrow ground,
a.ud also that there is no need for " remit, as the
evidence whioh ha.a been led in the case is sufficient
to reach the right conclusion. Neither party claimed before us that it ha.d a.ny further evidence
to offer. We therefore, proceed to consider the
oent~a.I point in the case, to whioh we have amply
referred a.lrea.dy.
The a.ppella.nt examined four witnesses and
reepond1>nt, seven in support of their respective
ca.see.
The High Court a.nd the two Courts below
did not rely upon the ore.I testimony a.t all. In
view of this, it is not nece881\ry to refer to the evidence of these witnesses, except where the proof of
a. document iB to be considered. The derision inthis oa.se therefore, depends upon the documents
produoed by the two parties in proof of their own tC'
contentions. These documents stand divided into
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
215
two kinds ! (a) those in which the inam is described
as Dhai·mila inam and (b) those in which it is described as Karnikam service inam. Some of these
documents do not app~ar to have been properly
proved. There are, besides, many documents which
were filed in the case but which are diftfoult to
connect with the land in dispute. The last category
will obviously have to be excluded from consideration. The most important document, of course, is
the jeroyti p((,ttft (Ex. A-5) granted by the Zamindar
of Pithapuram on September I, 1925, bec:iuse if the
land was hi.lid for lfornikam service from the
Zamindar, th~n it is admitted that it could be validly resumed and re-granted by the Zamindar. The
attempt of tho respondent, therefore, which succeed·
ed before the High Court but which had failed before the two Courts be)(JW was to show that the
land was a SurvfllZui;;bala inam, which could neither
be resumed by the Zamindar of Pithapuram nor regranted by him.
The learned single Judge in the High Court
treated the finding, that prior to 1925 what existed
was a Karnikam servic:e inllm, as a finding of law
open to him to consider in second appeal. After a
painstaking examination of the documents filed by
the parties, he came tq the eonclusion that there
wa-s no such thing 1ts a Dhannilri K.am£kam service
inam. He held that the Zamiudur had no power
to resume this land under the second proviso to s. 17
of the Madras Proprieta1·y Estates' Village Service
Act, 1894 (II of 1894) or to re-grant it on jerovti
patta. In this appeal, it is argued, at the outset,
that the learned single Judge, in substance, revers.
ed a finding of fact an<l that he was not entitled to
do so under s. 100 of the Code of the Civil Proce·
dnre.
!--~
A Construction of documents (unless they art'
documents of title) produrrd by the parties to
prove a
quel!tion
of fact
does
μot involve
1962
Nedunuri
K aml'$WttTamma
••
Sam1iati S, hba Rao
Hidavatul/ah J.
1962
1'ittlunwi
K anlt!~Watamm ~
v.
SGrrp11i Subba Rao
216
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1963)
an issue of law, unleBS it can be shown that the
material evidence contallied in them was misunderstood by the Court of fact.
The documents in this
cBBe, which havn been the subject of three Peparate
considerations, wore the Land Registers the Amarkam, and BIUJOband Accounts and the Adangal Registers, together with certain documents derived
from the ZamindRri records. None of these documents can be correctly described as a document of
title, whatever its evidentiary value otherwise. We
do not, however, wish to rest our decision on this
narrow ground even if right, because the legal inference from the proved fa.eta may still raise a question
of law.
Before we exa:nine for ourselves the various
documents in the record of the case wo wish to
determine the exact point which the evidence has
been held to establish.
The term "Dharmila" is
not a term of art, but is a convenient expre~sion to
describe those inams which are post-settlement as
distinguished from those that are pre.settlement.
Under s. ll of tha Estates (Abolition. and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (26 of 1948•, every
ryot in an estate shall, with effect on and from the
notified date, be entitled to a ryotwari patf,a in
respi·ct of all ryoti landR.
The Act abolishes all
ri11hts and interests in an estate belonging to any
land holder, and the word "estate" includes an
inam cotate within the meaning of s. 3(2)(d) of the
Estates Land Act.
Another consequence nf the
notification is to extinguish the relationship of the
land holder and ryot from the notified dato. To
avoid the consequences of tho Estates (Abolition
and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, both sides
claim the benefit of s. 11 of that Act, the appellant
claiming occupancy right on the strength of the
palta read with the provisions of the MadraH Estates
Lund Act as amended in I !136, and the respondent,
on the strength of the averment that the appellant •
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
217
and her predecessors held an inam estate having
only the melwaram rights, which got extinguished.
Whether the one or the other is right, therefore,
depends upon whether the appellant held an inam
or was merely a pattadar and thus an occupancy
tenant now entitled to be a ryot, and the respondent
was merely a sub-tenant. It is from this point of
view that the evidence of documents in the case
should be viewed.
Before considering this evidence, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of the three statutes,
which will clear the ground for our findings. The
Madras Permanent Settlement Regulation of 1802
(Madras Regulation 25 of 1802) was passed to fix for
ever a moderate assessment ·of public revenue not liable to be increased under any circumstance, to ensure
to the proprie.tors of lands the proprietary right of
the soil. Under that Settlement, instruments fixing
the demand were to be delivered to the proprietors,
and they, in their turn, were to execute Kabutiyat
accepting the assessment. Where a part of the Zamindari etc. was sold either in invitum or by private negotiation, the assessment on the separated lands bore the
same proportion to the actual value of the separated portion, as the total permanent jama on the
Zamindari bore to the actual value of the whole
Zamindari.
The Zamindars, were required to
furnish true accounts for this purpose. Section II
of the Regulation provicled that the Zamindars or
landholders should support the regular and established· number of karnams in the several villages of
their respective Zamindaries. These lcarnams · were
to obey all legal orders, but were removable only
by a sentence of a Court of Judicature. Simultaneously, the Madras Karnams Regulation of 1802
(Madras Regulation 29 of 1802) was passed to provide for the efficient establishment of the· office of a
f..._,,
karnam, so that authentic information and accounts
mi~ht be had. This Regulation provlded for the
Nedu'<U'i
Kameswaramma
v.
Sam/Jati Subb.J Rao
Hidayatul ltih J •
1952
~1duntt'i
Komuwar11mma
..
Somflati Subba llao
218
SUPR'.;;ME COURT REPORTS [1963)
establishment of lcurm1m for each village if the
r11venue was 400 pagoda.s or more, but it was possi·
ble for n karnam to be appointed for two or more
village8 where the revenue wa.s leBB.
The office was
hereditary except for proved incapacity of the
successor.
Lists of krtni.ams and of villages under
each had to be deposited in the Colleotorate. Elaborate provisions were made for the duties of the
lcurnams, the accounts and registers they had to
maintain, to the '\ccuraoy of which th" k11rnams
were compelled to swear.
In 18\14, tho Madras Proprietary Estates' Village Services Act, 1894 (II of 1894) .was pa•sed to
mak•• hotter provisions for the appointment and
remuneration of the karooms among others. The
A<:t was extendl'd to certain classes of village
offiCPr!' hy whatever designat.ion known lol'.'\llyviz.,
(l) Village Accountants.
{ ~) Head Villages.
(3)
Village watchmen or police offioers.
On the extension of the Act or any portion thereof
to the office of a village accountant in any estate,
s. 11 of Regulation 29 of 1802 and Ma.dra.s Regula·
tion 9fl of 1892 were to ceased to be in force.
"E8tate" was defined to include any permanently
settled !'Rtate or any portion of permanently settled e~tate separately registered or any inam village
or an.v nnrtion consisting of one or more villages of
any of the estates specified ear lier held on permanent umlertenure. "Village-office" was defined to
rol'an in respect of any estate, an offence in such
estate to which the Act or any portion thereof waR
extended and "Village-officer" meant a person
holding or diRcharging the duties of such o!lice
Chapter III of the Act then provided for the impo·
sition of e. village service ceBB, its a~ount oij
•
, .•
-..
i
""
'
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
219
I apportionment and the metlhod and incidents of
its levy. Thie was to provide funds for payment of
remuneration to the village servants who, prior to
the Act, were often remunerated by grant of lands.
Section 17 then provided :
.
A
"17. If the remuneration of a villageoffice consists in whole or in part of lands, or
assil?llments of revenue payable in respect of
lands, granted or continued in respect of oi.'
annexed to such village-office by. the State,
the State 9overnment may enfranchise the
said lands from the condition of service by the
imposition of quit-rent under the rules for the
time being in force in respect of the enfranchisement of village-servioe-inams in villages
not permanently settled or under such rules
as the State Government may lay down in this
behalf; such enfranchisement shall take effect
from such date ·as the State Government may
notify :
Provided that the said enfranchisement
shall be applicable to all lands or assignments
as aforesaid even though, at the time this
Act comes into force they may not be devoted
to the purpose for which they were originally
granted ; and provided further, that any lands
or emoluments derived from lands which
may have been granted by the proprietor for
the remuneration of village-service and which
are .still so held or enjoyed may be resumed
by the gr an tor or his represent.ative,"
The section dealt with the enfranchisement of
two kinds of lands : (a) lands granted by the State
to he enfranchised . by the State, and (b) : lands
~ granted by the proprietor to be enfranchised by the
' "- proprietor. Previously1 in fixing the pei.!hkuslf, .of
IIU
Nedumwi
Kamuutar•mma
v.
Sam/udi Subb1J Rao
H idvalullah J.
1962
NtdunUli
Kamut•aramina
••
SomfJoti Subba /tao
220
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]
the Zamindar, due regard was given to the expenses of the office of a lcarnam, and they wero exeludcd from the aesets of the Zamindari.
An adjustment of the peishlcu.~h was allowed by the Act.
From the above, it will be seen that after the
p8.8Bing of Act II of 1894 the lcarnams were to be
paid in cash and the Act enabled the enfranohisemont of lands granted on favourable terms to the
!C11rna11rn.
Tho lands granted by the State were to
be enfranchised by the St1ite and those granted by
the Zamindar by the Zamindar. Tho learned single
,Judge was of tho view that the lands granted or
held by way of remuneration for the performance
of tho village office such as that of a karnam could
only be enfranchi;ied by the State Government
and nut by the Zamindar; who had nothing to do
with such lands. The action of thP- Zamindar in this
rase in Hl25 to resume the lands and to re-grant
thorn by a jeroyti pa.Ua was thus said to be entirely
without juriHdiction. It was held that if these lands
wero originally Dharmila. inauu, they could not be
rcHurucd by the Zamindnr, nor re-granted, and tho
learned Judge was of the further view that tho re
was no such thing as a karnam service inam.
The words of s. 17 of Act II of 1894 quite
clearly show that lands cou Id be granted for village
service either by the State or by the proprietor.
'·
The title of the Aot is "Proprietary Estates' Village
Service''. dThe words "village
7
serMviceh" ad~e use~ in
A
the sccon
proviso to s. I .
uc
1stinct10n
cannot, therefore, be made between village-officers
and vi1111go servants, as is made in the Madras
Hereditary Village-Offices Act, 1895 (III of 1895).
We do not think that the second proviso is only
limited to lands granted by the proprietors to village
artisans or village servants such as the astrologers
and the purohits. Even in the Hereditary Village ..:"
Offices Act, the term "office" is used not only iQ
'
'
2 s.c.R. SUPREME COURTS REPORTS
221
the title but in connection with artisans and village
servants. The gist of s. 17 thus was that lands
granted for the remuneration of the karnams were
to be resumed by the State if granted by the State,
and by the proprietor, if granted by the proprietor.
The land in question in this case has not been
shown to be granted at any time by the State.
Resumption by the State under s. 17 was thus out
-" of question. The only question is whether it was a
Dharmila inam, i. e. a personal service inam granted after the settlement or a grant for Karnikam
service. That the land was held as Karnikam
service inam on the date of -resumption is amply
proved by the proceedings. The question is whether
it was a Karnikam service inam. On this point,
the oral evidence has not been considered, and we
have thus only the documents filed by parties.
Of these documents, Exs. B-:n to B-43, which
are the DharmiJ,a inam accounts of N.iduru village
for fasli 1290 relating to Palivela Thana need not
be consider!ld, because it is impossible to connect
them with the suit land. Similarly also, Ex. A-17
series, the file of assessment receipts showing payment of taxes to Pithapuram Estate, are all after
Ex. A-5, and do not add weight to it. They also
concern diverse lands, and cannot be said to clinch
the issue. Exhibits A-8 to A-11, A-14 and A-15 are
the previous K11dapas executed in favour of the
appellant, similar to Ex. A-1, on the suit was based.
They are not relevant to decide the controversy,
except in so far as there is an admission by the
respondent that he haR taken these lands on a
yearly lease.
Exhibits B-4 to B-12 are·the assessment receipts from the jeroyti ryots.
They do not
mention the suit land, but the name ofVakkalanka
'"" Venkatasubbarayudu is mentioned in them. They
show that Venkatasubbarayudu was paying jeroyti
tax to the Estate from 1888 to 1901, which is the
1968
Nttlunuri
Kameawa1ammd
••
Sampati Subba Ra •
Hidqyatu/lah J.
1961
N-dunuri
X .. n·tswarammo
..
Satnp 1ti Subbo Roo
222
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1963]
period covered by the receipts. These too cannot
be said to help the appellant, because tho id~ntity
of th" lands again is not clear. The remaining
documents undoubtedly srcak sometimes of the
land as Dharmila inam and sometimes a.s held for
Karnikam service. The documents on whioh the
appellant relies are divided into two parts, those
after the pat/a, Ex. A 5 dated September 1, 1925
or in connection with the grant thereof, and those
before the grant of the said patta..
Exhibit B-1 jp
of the year 1903, and is a certified extra.ct of the
land register of Nedunuru village for the suit land,
and there, it is clearly shown that this was a
Dharmil.a inam held for.Karnikam service. Exhibits
B-14 and B-15 both of June 15, 1903 also show the
same thing. The first is a certified extract of a
statement of Vakkalanka
Venkatasubbarayudu
before the Deputy Inam Collector, and the land is
described a.s "Paikars Miraai in Karn am Service."
The other also mentions it a.a a service inam. These
documents do not bear out the contentions of the
respondents, even though Vakkalanka Venkatasubbarayudu seemed to have objected at the time. In
Ex. B-18, which is another entry from the land
registers, the land is shown a.a Dharmil.a inam for
service as Karnikam. In Ex. A-2 of 1920-21, whioh
is a statement of Dharmila inams and services
from the l'ithapuram Estate, the inam is shown
"for service", but there is a note :
, .
"There ie no need to continue this Inam
free of service. This should be resumed and
aseMSed, if no agreement is given. Continue
·'
as long as the service is rendered properly.
(Signed) ..... for Raj&.",
and underneath, there is another endorsement :
'·
"Immediate steps should be taken to
resume hie Inam and aeeese, as they are being ~
pa.id money."
T
..
i
•
2 S.C.R. SUPREME OOUR'i' REPoRTS
223
This shows that by 1920-21 the change in law
'! under which there was a money payment for
Karnikam service was taken note · of, and the lands
were asked to be resumed by the Zamindar under
s. 17 of Act II of 1894. In Exhibits A-3 and A-4
( 19~3 and 1924), the Dewan again orders resumption of these lands, and in the latter, notice was
ordered to be sent through a vakil. This notice was
apparently issued in October, 1924, and the reply
to it was given by Vakkalanka Venkatasubbarayudu
in Ex. B-34, where he stated that the lands were
not DharmiT.a Karnikam service inam. The admission of Vekkalanka Venkatasubbarayudu is used
by the respondent as an admission against himself;
but it is quite clear that Vakkalanka Ve.nkatasubbarayudu made that statement merely to avert
resumption of the lands,. which was quite contrary
to the facts already stated by us. . Indeed, ihe
Pithapuram Estate did not pay attention to it,
and took a statement from Venkatasubbarayudu
on September l, 1925 (Ex. B·35) that he was willing
to have a·. jerayti patt.a, though he stated that his
action was without prejudice to any case that he
might file in Court. Venkatasubbarayudu never
filed a suit, and accepted Ex. A-5, the jeroyti patt.a
in 1925. In addition to these documents, the appellant relied on Ex. A-12 an important document
of 1904, which is an extract from the Siirvey and
Settlement Register. This land is there. shown as
held for karnam service. He also relied on Ex. B. 25
. J~ but that is not a document relating to this land.
From the above, it will appear that right
from 1903 to 1925 this land was treated as held on
kamam service inam liable to be resnmed by the
Zamindar. The other doonments show that it was,
in fact, so rell'.lllled · and a jerayti patta was given,
and in all the subsequent documents, it is described
~ as jeroyti .Ian~.
196Z
Nldanuri
Kameswaramma
v.
Sompati 8ubba Rao
H id1V1otullaA J,
1952
N tdunuri
.K tmUSfll.,ontllta
v.
6ar11,ati S1tbbo Ru
Hiclayatull•h J.
224
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]
The other side relies upon some accoun ls
which have been summoned from the Estate. Ex.
hibits 13·28 lo B-30 arc the Blwoband acco1111t.• of
1~14, ISliO and 1851.
Tht·\" relate to some land~
which are described a9 lfu1nba."lrt inams in Chalapa.lli·
Nedunuru group. These accounts cannot be connected with the suit land, and no legal inference can
be drawn from them. Exhibit B-36 (1906) is the
Jhadt,a account of fasli l "!16. The land in suit is
mentioned, and them is a not :
"Enkred as karnam 8ervice inam but not
correct. It is a Dharmila inam."
There is no proof why thi8 entry was made in the
Jhadlrt account, who wrote it and when, and the
entries arc contradicted .by the action of the Zamindar between 1921 and 1925 under which these lands
were, in fact, resumed, which they would not have
been if they were Dharmila ina.m.
This endorsement was held by the District Munsif not to have
been proved. P. W. I could not depose to this fact,
and we must treat the en:lorsement as inconclusive.
The next is Ex. B-42 of 1892. That is a Dbarmila
Inn.m Statement of Nedunuru Pa.live la Thane..
The
Palivela !name, according to the remarks column,
were granted for ferry service. There iH an entry
in the name of V&kkalanka Venkatasubbarayudu
under the heading "Shrotriern or service", and the
entry there reads: "Dharmila Inam", but the extent
of the land and its numbers are missing, and thus,
there is no satisfactory evidence that this was the
t'and which was described there. There is also a.
11ote to the following effect :
"It is not known when the Ina.ms were
granted, by whom they were granted and for
what purpose they were granted. No doou- ,-"
ments a.re available."
r
..
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
225
This document does not throw any light upon the
l
controversy, in view of the lack of material to con·
nect it with the suit land. Exhibit B-2 is the
Adangal Register of Fasli 1333, and the land is
shown there as Dharmila inam. It is said that this
Adangal Register was written by the appellant's
ancestor, who was the karnam. The fact that he
was the karnam concedes a great deal of the appellant's case. The entry made by the then karnam
- J
in a register which might not have been accurately
maintained, cannot lead to an inference that he
ma.de this entry against his own interest. In fact
these people were <llaiming about that time that
they had a Dharmila inam, so that it would not be
resumed, and it may be that the 1>ntry was made
merely to support a case. Similarly, Ex. B-26 of
1920 is another account, and might have been written with the same object. The last document is
Ex. B-28, which is a list of the dumhala inams in
the Zamindari. There are no num hers of the lands,
• """ and there is thus nothing in it to connect the list
with the land in suit.
'••
j
From the above analysis of the docum3nts, it
is quite clear that the documents on the side of the
appellant established that this was a Karnikam ser·
vice inam, and the action of the Zamindar in resuming it as such, which again has a presumption of
correctness attaching to it, clearly established the
appellant's case. Much cannot be made of a concession by counsel that this was a Dharmila inam, in
the trial Court, because it was a concession on a
point of law, and it was withdrawn. Indeed, the
central point in the dispute was this, and the concession appears to us to be due to some mistake or
possibly ignorance not binding on the client. We
are thus of opinion that the decision of the two
~ Courts below which had concurrently held this to
be jeroyti land after resumption of the Karnikam
1!61
Nedunuri
K.c1m&sw,,r.vnma
••
Sampati Subb.J Rao
Hidoyalul/ah J.
1961
Nldu'ftllri
Kttmaroorammt
Y.
s.,,,,,1111 S•bl>a Ru
Hid..,.,.i/d J.
Ifft
226
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]
service inam Wal! correct in tho circumstances of the
caBe, and the High Court was not justified in revel'lling it.
The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the judgment
of the High Court set a.side, and that of the lower
Court restored, with costs throughout.
A ppw.l allowe.d.
SREE RAGHUTHILAKATHIRTHA
SREEPADANGALAVARU SWAMIJI
v.
THE STATE OF MYSORE AND OTHERS
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAOADKAB, K. N.
WANCHOO, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR and
T. L VENKA.TARA...'llA AIYAR, JJ.)
Landlord and Tenant-Rem-Enactment providing for
jixaticm of ma:r:imum rent - COMtitulional validity-Notijicalion
ai:r:ing atandard rent-Validity-Bombay Tenanc.~ and ,,ipncultural Landa Act, 1918 ( Bom. 67 of 1948), a. 6-M ysore TeMn·
cy Act,.1952 (Myaore 13 of 1952), as. 6(1112), 12-CO'Mlitutimi
of India, Art. U,19(1) (fl, 26,31,31A.
The Mysore Tenancy Act, 1952, was enacted, inter alia,
for the purpose of regulating the law which governed the
relations of landlords and tenants of agricultural lands. Subsection (I) of s. 6 of the Act provided: "Notwithstanding
any agreement, usage, decree or order of a court or any law,
the maximum rent payable in respect of any period ...... by
a tenant for the lease of any land shall not exceed one-half
of the crop or crops raised on such land or its value
as determined in the prescribed manner". "The Government
may, by notification in the Mysore Gazette, fix a lower rate
of the maximum rent payable by the tenantS of lands situate
in any particular area or may fix such rate on any other
suitable basis as they think fit".
In exercise of the Power.
...,
conferred by s.6(2), the Government of Mysore issued a •
notification purporting to fix the standard rent for
land