# R.E.M.S. ABDUL HAMEED v. GOVINDARAJU AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1999] 2 S.C.R. 1010
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1999-05-04
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1257 of 1976
- **Bench:** A.P. Misra, R.C. Lahoti
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/r-e-m-s-abdul-hameed-v-govindaraju-and-ors-16663
- **Pages:** 23

## Headnote

Tenancy and Land Laws:
T.N. Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963
C (Act 26 of 1963), Sections 2(9), 2(11) Explanations 1(a) and 1(b)-T.N.
Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 30 of
1963), Section 2(9)-Lands whose grant was expressed only in terms of
acreage or cawines do not constitute a "Part village inam estate" and are
excludedfrom the operation of Act 26of1963-Such land is a "minor inam"
D under Section 2(9) of Act 30 of 1963-Intention of the legislature was to
encompass all inam estates within the fold of Act 26 of 1963 and if an
exception was made, the exclusion has to be made keeping in view the
intention of the legislature-Exclusion cannot be read by ipse dixit but only
through clear unimpeachable evidence-High Court rightly upheld the
findings of the Tribunal that on the basis of records, the grant of the disputed
E lands could not be said to be only in terms of acreage-As the grant land
consisting of two separate and distinct areas formed apart of two separate
and identifiable villages, the said areas could not be a "part village inam
estate" covered by the definition in Section 2(11) of Act 26 of 1963-Tamil
Nadu Inams (Supplementary) Act, 1963 (Act 31 of 1963), Section 5-Tamil
F
Nadu Inams (Supplementary) Rules, 1965, Rule 5.
T.N. lnam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963
(Act 26 of 1963), Sections 2(9), 2(11) Explanations 1(a) and 1(b)-T.N.
/nam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 30 of
1963), Section 2(9)-Legislative development on inams and estates tracedG T.N. Jnams Act, 1869 (Act 8 of 1869)-T.N. Regulations, _1802 and 1822T.N. Land Recovery Act, 1908 (Act 1 of 1908)-T.N. Estates Land (Third
Amendment) Act, 1936 (Act 18 of 1936).
T.N. Jnam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963
(Act 26 of 1963), Section 2(11) Explanation 1(b)-"Minor inams"-The
H significance of Explanation 1(b) .lies in that all inam estates are covered
1010
R.E.M.S. ABDUL HAMEED v. GOVINDARAJU
1011
under Act 26 of 1963 and all such estates stand transferred and vested in A
the State-All preceding enactments in respect of inam estates have been
repealed except to extent of E'Cplanation l(b)-This residual inam is carried
over and read as "minor inam" under Section 2(9) of Act 30 of 1963Therefore, the land excluded by Explanation 1 (b) is not covered by Act 26
of 1963 but is covered by Act 30 of 1963.
Ancient Hindu law-Beneficial interest in land-Under the ancient
Hindu system there were two beneficial interests in land, namely (1) that of
B
the sovereign or his representative, and (2) that of the cultivator (or Ryot)
holding the land-The cultivator's right arose from occupation of the landThus the grant of an inam did not and could not have touched the cultivator's
right in the land, except in rare case where the grantor also held the C
cultivator's interest at the time of the grant.
Words and Phrases-Words "estate", "part", "part village inam estate"
and "minor inam "-Meaning of-In the context of T.N. Inam Estates (Abolition
and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 26of1963); T.N. Inam Estates
(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 30 of 1963).
D
Evidence Act, 1872-Sections 61 & 63-Prior judgment as secondary
evidence-Secondary evidence in respect to a grant of land-Jn absence of
primary evidence regarding such grant, secondary evidence gathered from
an earlier judgment of the High Court about the same land on a different
question and between different parties.
E
Interpretation of Statutes-Basic Rules-Determination of legislative
intent-History of the land reform legislations concerning inam estatesIntention of these legislation was to encompass all inam estates within its
fold-Small exclusion made in case of "minor inams"-The exclusion has to
be read keeping in view the intention of the legislation-Madras Inam F
Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 26 of
1963), Sections

## Text

_Characters 0–39,944 of 60,392. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39944 for what follows._

A
R.E.M.S. ABDUL HAMEED
v.
GOVINDARAJU AND ORS.
MAY 4, 1999
B
..
[A.P. MISRA AND R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.]
Tenancy and Land Laws:
T.N. Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963
C (Act 26 of 1963), Sections 2(9), 2(11) Explanations 1(a) and 1(b)-T.N.
Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 30 of
1963), Section 2(9)-Lands whose grant was expressed only in terms of
acreage or cawines do not constitute a "Part village inam estate" and are
excludedfrom the operation of Act 26of1963-Such land is a "minor inam"
D under Section 2(9) of Act 30 of 1963-Intention of the legislature was to
encompass all inam estates within the fold of Act 26 of 1963 and if an
exception was made, the exclusion has to be made keeping in view the
intention of the legislature-Exclusion cannot be read by ipse dixit but only
through clear unimpeachable evidence-High Court rightly upheld the
findings of the Tribunal that on the basis of records, the grant of the disputed
E lands could not be said to be only in terms of acreage-As the grant land
consisting of two separate and distinct areas formed apart of two separate
and identifiable villages, the said areas could not be a "part village inam
estate" covered by the definition in Section 2(11) of Act 26 of 1963-Tamil
Nadu Inams (Supplementary) Act, 1963 (Act 31 of 1963), Section 5-Tamil
F
Nadu Inams (Supplementary) Rules, 1965, Rule 5.
T.N. lnam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963
(Act 26 of 1963), Sections 2(9), 2(11) Explanations 1(a) and 1(b)-T.N.
/nam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 30 of
1963), Section 2(9)-Legislative development on inams and estates tracedG T.N. Jnams Act, 1869 (Act 8 of 1869)-T.N. Regulations, _1802 and 1822T.N. Land Recovery Act, 1908 (Act 1 of 1908)-T.N. Estates Land (Third
Amendment) Act, 1936 (Act 18 of 1936).
T.N. Jnam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963
(Act 26 of 1963), Section 2(11) Explanation 1(b)-"Minor inams"-The
H significance of Explanation 1(b) .lies in that all inam estates are covered
1010
R.E.M.S. ABDUL HAMEED v. GOVINDARAJU
1011
under Act 26 of 1963 and all such estates stand transferred and vested in A
the State-All preceding enactments in respect of inam estates have been
repealed except to extent of E'Cplanation l(b)-This residual inam is carried
over and read as "minor inam" under Section 2(9) of Act 30 of 1963Therefore, the land excluded by Explanation 1 (b) is not covered by Act 26
of 1963 but is covered by Act 30 of 1963.
Ancient Hindu law-Beneficial interest in land-Under the ancient
Hindu system there were two beneficial interests in land, namely (1) that of
B
the sovereign or his representative, and (2) that of the cultivator (or Ryot)
holding the land-The cultivator's right arose from occupation of the landThus the grant of an inam did not and could not have touched the cultivator's
right in the land, except in rare case where the grantor also held the C
cultivator's interest at the time of the grant.
Words and Phrases-Words "estate", "part", "part village inam estate"
and "minor inam "-Meaning of-In the context of T.N. Inam Estates (Abolition
and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 26of1963); T.N. Inam Estates
(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 30 of 1963).
D
Evidence Act, 1872-Sections 61 & 63-Prior judgment as secondary
evidence-Secondary evidence in respect to a grant of land-Jn absence of
primary evidence regarding such grant, secondary evidence gathered from
an earlier judgment of the High Court about the same land on a different
question and between different parties.
E
Interpretation of Statutes-Basic Rules-Determination of legislative
intent-History of the land reform legislations concerning inam estatesIntention of these legislation was to encompass all inam estates within its
fold-Small exclusion made in case of "minor inams"-The exclusion has to
be read keeping in view the intention of the legislation-Madras Inam F
Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 26 of
1963), Sections 2(9), 2(11) Explanations l(a) and l(b)-T.N. Minor Jnams
(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 30 of 1963), Section
2(9).
The respondents filed a petition under Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu G
lnams (supplementary) Act, 1963 (Act 31 of 1963) for a declaration that the
two areas. (Mela and Kizha) in a village 'A' ofTaluk 'P', formed a new inam
estate falling under T.N. lnam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari)
Act, 1963 (Act 26 of 1963) was illegal and liable to be quashed as the
original grant of the disputed areas was not made in terms of acreage or
cawnies; hence would only constitute to be a part of inam estate in view of H
1012
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1999] 2 S.C.R.
I
A Section 2(11) of the Act 26 of 1963. Settlement Officer, on the basis of
Karunbavira Vanniar*, held that village' A' is not 'estate' within the meaning
of Section 3(2) (d) of the Madras Estates Act, 1908. It was held on the basis
of evidence that in 1829 there were two areas 'Mela' and 'Kizha' (the former
formed part of village 'R' and the latter formed part of village 'P') and that
B
it was neither to be whole village nor part village, and even not covered under
Explanation l(a) of Section 2(11) of Act 26of1963 as the grant was not of
any fraction or specified number of shares of a part of village. It was
concluded by the Settlement Officer that that the grant was of specified
extends of lands, was covered by Explanation l(b) of Section 2(11), and thus
a minor inam and suit land in village 'A'. The respondents preferred an
C appeal before the Minor loam Estates Abolition Tribunal (Tribunal) and the
same was allowed on the ground that two parts 'Mela' and Kizha' could be
easily identified without their extents and boundaries being given were a
"part" village inam estate" as defined in explanation l(a) of section 2(11) of
Act 26 of 1963. In the absence of any document or evidence concerning the
grant which was made in 1862, the Tribunal relied on the observation made
D in Karumbavira Vanniar*. The appellants filed a revision before the High
Court and the same was dismissed by it, holding that having regard to the
definition of minor inam in Section 2(9) of T.N. loam Estates (Abolition and
Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 30of1963) read with the definition
of"part village inam estate" in Section 2(11) of Act 26of1963, the Tribunal
E was right in setting.aside the order of the Settlement Officer aside. Hence
this appeal.
It was contended by the appellants that the disputed land cannot be
construed to be "part village inam estate" to fail within Act 26of1963, but
was a minor inam to fall within Act 30 of 1963 read with definition of "partF
village inam estate" under Section 2(11) of Act 26 of 1963.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1. Madras Inam act, 1869 declares that the enfranchisement
of an inam and the grant of a title deed to the inamdar should not be deemed
G to define, limit, or infringe the right of any description of holder or occupier ,
of the land from which the inam was defined. Thus, the right of an inamdar
does not ordinarily extend to the full proprietorship of the land, especially
in the case treated as estates on exactly the same footing as zamindaris in
the Madras Regulations of 1802 and 1822, the Madras Rent Recovery Act,
1865, the Madras Proprietary Estates Village Service Act, 1894 and the
H Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act, 1895 and it ultimately resulted in
-
--
R.E.M.S. ABDUL HAMEED v. GOVINDARAJU
1013
the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908. [1020-D-E]
A
2.1. It is significant that the definition in the T.N. Estates Land Act,
1908 prior to its amendment by Act 18of1936 dealt with the grant of land
revenue ofany village to a person not owning the Kudivaram (share of the
ryot or cultivator) thereof, while the definition after ~he said amendment
dealt with cases where any inam village had been granted. By virtue of B
Section 3 of Act 26of1963, with effect from the date of notification, all other
enactments applicable to an inam estate and the entire such inam estate
stands transferred and vested in the State and all rights and interests
created in such inam estate before the notified date stand ceased and
determined. Thus, the significance of the interpretation of Explanation I(b) C
of Section 2(11) of the Act gains importance. Gradually the inam estate was
broug~t in within the definition of estate through various enactment Initially
it was divided into two, namely, (i) for the whole village or more than one
village, and (ii) for part of the village. In spite of this some of the inams
contested not to fall under either of the two, for which disputes were raised
in courts in large numbers which led to bringing in the said two enactments D
in 1963 by giving them more precise meaning. This was sought to be
achieved through definitions in Section 2 of Act 26 of 1963 viz "existing
inam estate", i.e., "inam estate", "new inam,estate" and "part-village inam
estate" to make the law and the subject clear. The "existing inam estates"
are inam villages, which are estates as recognised through the Third E
Amendment Act 18of1936. What is not covered under it is brought in under
the Act 26 of 1963 within its definition "new-inam estate" to mean partvillage inam estate. Thus inam estate "under this Act included both the
existing inam estate and new inam estate". As "new inam estate" referred
to mean 'a part village inam estate' or 'a ,Pudukkottai inam estate,' the part
village inam estate itself is defined under sub-clause (11) of Section 2, which F
is subject1to scrutiny in the present case. This Act brings all inam villages
under its ~road definition to include all preceding inams and also such inams
which arlsaid to have been excluded but yet excluded a small fraction out
of the 'pa t village inam estate' by virtue of sub-clause (b) of Explanation I
of Sectio 2(11). So the net conclusion is that now all inam estates are
covered u der this Act, and all preceding enactments in respect of the inam G
estates are repealed except to the extent of sub-clause (b) of Explanation I.
This residual inam is carried to be read as 'minor inam' under sub-clause
(9) of Section 2 of Act No. 30 of 1963. So if appellant would be said to have
been excluded from sub-clause (b) of· Explanation I they would be out of Act
No. 26 of 1963 and to be in Act No. 30of1963. [1026-H; 1027-A-G]
H
A
B
1014
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1999] 2 S.C.R.
2.2. To be out of Act No. 26 of 1963, the area of grant to the appellants
should not ~onstitute to be a 'part village estate' and for this the appellants
have to prove that its grant was expressed 'only in terms of acreage or
cawnies etc.'. Unless this is shown excfosion from the Act cannot be gained.
Lμoking back to the history of legislation to encompass all inam estates
within its folds and if small exclusion is made, the exclusion has to be read
keeping with the intention of the legislation. The exclusion cannot be read
by ipsi dipsi but only through clear and unimpeachable evidence. Legislature
further makes it clear through sub-Section (9) of Section 2 of Act 30 of
1963 that it is only such area of grant which is not included within the
purview of Act 26 of 1963 will constitute to be "minor inam" under Act No.
C 30 of 1963. (1027-H; 1028-A-B]
D
E
F
3.1. In the present case, the grant itself is not on the record which
would have been the primary evidence to test appellant's case through the
provision of s.ub-clause (11) of Section 2. The parties reinclined to the
collateral evidence and that too what is recorded in the case of Karunbavira
Vanniar* which is also ofThanjavur estate which also refers to the aforesaid
two distinct sets of areas, namely, Mela and f(jzha. The only question which
arises is whether either on the evidence led and the collateral evidence
gathered from the aforesaid decision, could it be read, on the facts of this
case that the grant as an inam of tt.e disputed area was expressed only in
terms of acreage or cawnies or other local equivalent. [1028-C-D]
3.2. The findings recorded in Karunbavira Vanniar* is that the area
Mela and f(jzha were parts of village Rajagiri and Papnasam respectively and
only they are part of the village; the area would be covered within the
definition of Section 2(11) of Act 26of1963 Act 30of1963 clearly, while
defining the meaning "minor inams" under Section 2(9) excludes from its
ambit by virtue _of sub-clause (b) of this very section what is covered by
Section 2(9) of Act 26 of 1963, "a new inam estate" as defined under Section
2(9) of Act 26of1963 is a "part-village inam estate". Since the aforesaid
two bits ofland are admittedly a part of village and "part-village inam estate"
is defined under such Section 2(11), the area in question being part of two
G villages it would be a new inam estate within the meaning of Section 2(9) of
Act 26 of 1963 and thus it cannot be excluded by virtue of clause (b)
Explanation I of Section 2(11) and thus it cannot be minor inam under Act
30 of 1963. (1031-C-F]
*Karunbavira Vanniar, (1977) MLW ·741 and Sri Akka/oi Ammani
H chatram v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1980) 1 MLJ 76 FB, approved.
--
R.E.M.S. ABDUL HAMEED v. GOVINDARAJU [MISRA, J.] 1015
Secy, of State v. Velivelapalli Mallayya, AIR (1932) PC 238, relied on. A
P. Muniam v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1994) 1SCC643; Aluru Kondayya
v. Singaraju Rama Rao, [1966) 1SCR842 and H.R. Sathyanaraynan Rao v.
State of Tamil Nadu, (1977) 1 MLJ 302, distinguished.
T.R. Bhavani Shankar Joshi v. Somasundara Moopanar, [1963) 2 SCR B
421 and S. Sundaram Ayyar v. Ramachandra Ayyar, ILR (1917) 40 Mad 89
FB, referred to.
4. The origin of inam tenure is traced back to it grants made by the
Hindu rulers for the support of temples and charitable institutions, for the
maintenance of holy and learned men rendering public service, etc. This c
practice was followed by the Mohammedan rulers and by British
administrators until about a century ago. According to the ancient Hindu
law, there were two beneficial interests in land, namely, (1) that of the
sovereign or his representative and (2) that of the cultivator holding the land.
The sovereign's right to collect a share of the produce of the cultivated land
was known by the name "melvaram", the share of the ryot or cultivator was D
..
known by the name "Kudivaram". The ryot's right arose from occupation of
the land. Thus, the grant of an inam did not touch, and could not have
touched, the cultivator's right in the land, namely, the kudivaram, except in
rare cases where the grantor was also holding the cultivator's interest at
the time of the grant. (1020-A-C)
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1257 of
1976.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.8.1976 of the Madras High Court
in C.R.P. No. 849of1971.
-
F
Tripurari Ray, Vineet Kumar, A.T.M. Sampath and V. Bal11ji for the
Appellant.
R. Sundaravaradan, V.J. Francis, P.I. Jose and A. Mariarputham (NP) for
the Respondents.
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MISRA, J. These two appeals raise a common question hence are being
disposed of by means of this common judgment. The question raised is,
whether Arayapuram Thattimal Padugai, consisting of two distinct areas, viz.,
Mela Thattimal Padugai and Kizha Thattimal Padugai was known at the H
1016
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1999] 2 S.C.R.
A relevant time, is a minor inam coming within the purview of The Tamil Nadu
Minor loams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, (hereinafter
referred to 'as the Act 30 of 1963') or it would fall under the Madras loam
Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act :XXVI of 1963, (hereinafter
referred to 'as the Act No. 26 of 1963'). The State Government initially issued
B
notification treating it to be under Act No. 26 of 1963, later withdrew and
notified it under Act No. 30 of 1963. The appellants' contention is that the
State Government rightly issued it to be under Act No. 30 of 1963 and it is
held to be valid also by the Settlement Officer, S.R. II, Thanjavur.
The short facts are that the respondents filed a petition under Section
c 5 of the Madras loams (Supplementary) Act (XXXI of 1963) (hereinafter
referred to as 'Act No. 31 of I 963') for a declaration that the said two distinct
areas oflands in Arayapuram Thattimal Padugai Village, of Papanasam Taluk
form a new inam estate falling under Act No. 26 of I963. The notification
issued by the Government of India under Act No. 30 of I963 is illegal, liable
•
D
to be quashed as the original grant of the disputed areas was not made in
terms of acreages or cawnies hence would only constitute to be a part of inam
estate in view of Section 2 (I I) of the Act No. 26 of I 963. The Settlement
Officer after hearing parties, including the State, held that the Madras High
Court in Karumbavira Vanniar & Ors. v. Govindaswami Vanniar & Ors., ·
(1977) Madras Law Weekly, 74I, h~ld that Arayapuram Thattimal Padugai is
E
not 'estate' within the meaning of Section 3 (2)( d) of the Madras Estates Land
Act, I 908. It further recorded that evidence shows that i.n I 829 there were two
areas, namely, Mela Thattima!Padugai (hereinafter referred to as 'Mela') and
Kizha Thattimal Padugai (hereinafter referred to as 'Kizha'). The former formed
part of Rajagiri village and the latter formed part of Papanasa village. It is the
area of this land in Mela and Kizha which is the subject matter under
F
consideration. The Settlement Officer held it neither to be whole village nor
-
part village, and even not covered under Explanation l (a) of Section 2 (I I)
of the Act No. 26 of I 963 as the grant is not of any fraction or specified
number of shares of a part of village. It concluded that the grant was of
specified extents of lands, hence, is covered by Explanation I (b) of Section
G 2 (I I), thus a minor inam and so the suit land in Arayapuram Thattimal
Padugai is only a minor inam falling under Act No. 30 of 1963, thus upheld
the impugned notification. The petition of the respondents was accordingly
dismissed. The respondents then preferred an appeal before the Minor Inam
Estates Abolition Tribunal (Subordinate Judge) of Thanjavur, hereinafter
referred to as 'the Tribunal'). The appeal was allowed. The Tribunal held with
H reference to the Karumbavira Vanniar (Supra) that the undisputed facts which
R.E.M.S. ABDUL HAMEED v. GOVINDARAJU [MISRA, J.] 1017
emerges are that in 1862, which is the year of grant, there were two areas, A
namely Mela and Kizha falling under villages Rajagiri· and Papanasam,
respectively. In the list of 193 villages in the grant of 1862, one of the entries
is Arayapuram Thattimal Padugai. It further records, it is conceded by the
learned counsel for the respondents (appellants here) that the extent of the
padugai or the boundaries of the lands in question are not given. It is these B
two portions, namely, Mela and Kizha, subsequently, were merged together
and formed into the present revenue Village No. 5 as Arayapuram Thattimal
Padugai in 1919. The Tribunal further accepted submission on behalf of the
appellants (respondents here) that the said two distinct portions granted . in
inam can be easily identified without its extents and boundaries being given.
Thus, it construed it to be a 'part village inam estate'. The Tribunal also C
accepted that Arayapuram Thattimal Padugai which is mentioned among 193
items covering the grant of 1862, consisted of the aforesaid two portions,
namely Mela and Kizha, respectively. So what have been granted are defined
portions in two different villages. But extents of the two padugais are not
given. It is also relevant to quote the following observations made in D
Karumbavira Vanniar (Supra), as the said observations have also been referred
and relied by the Tribunal. This was because both the parties relied on it for
gathering facts, in the absence of proper evidence in the present case. This
reliance was, as it also pertains to the same estate of Raja of Thanjavur with
reference to this land itself which is in dispute though was not between the
same party with a different question raised. The observations are:
E
"It is in evidence that as early as the year 1829 there were two areas,
Mela Thattimal Padugai and Kizha Thattimal Padugai, the former formed
.Part of Rajagiri Village and the latter of papanasam Villag~. Evidently,
both these portions, although there was no geographical contiguity,
were designated as Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai at the time when the F
East India Co., took over the village and later granted it to the heirs
of the last of Rajahs of Tanjore ... .It will be plain from what we have
stated above, that both before and immediately after the grant of the
year 1862, the two parts of the present Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai
were attached to different taraf villages and could have only formed G
part of those villages .... This will show that there was no such distinct
village of that name, though there were two areas designed as Mela
Thattimal Padugai and Kizha Thattimal Padugai, which perhaps for
convenience was referred to as Aryapuram Thattimal at the time of the
grant.. .. We, therefore, agree with the conclusion reached by the learned
Subordinate Judge as well as by the Tribunal that the grant was of H
1018
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1999] 2 S.C.R.
A
two separate bits of land lying in two different Taraf villages and that
it was now the year 1919 that they were amalgamated to form what
is now known as No. 5, Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai village."
Hence, the Tribunal held that what were granted in 1862 were two
distinct portions of land in two different taraf villages. It set aside the finding
B of the Settlement Officer by holding:
" ..... The learned Settlement Officer is not quite correct when he says
that the evidence available indicates that the grant was of a specified extent
of lands only. Admittedly the extents are not mentioned in the grant...."
C The said earlier decision records that the survey numbers of Kizha are l to
56 and of Mela are 57 to 68 though are separated by a mile but they formed
one block. The grant thus is of two parts of two villages. Thus, the Tribunal
allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Settlement Officer and also
the notification under Act No. 30 of 1963 and held that the said two parts were
D compendiously known then as Arayapuram Thattimal Padugai and is a 'part
village inam estate'. Aggrieved by this, the present appellants filed revision
before the High Court.
Appellants submitted before the High Court, in the absence of original
grants, on the residuary evidence specially on the fact as recorded in
E Karumbavira Vanniar (supra) to which both parties relies, expresses the
grant to be only in terms of acreages or cawnies and, therefore, it cannot be
·deemed to be a 'part village inam estate'. The submission, in fact, was in terms
of the language of Explanation 1 (b) of Section 2 (11) of Act No. 26of1963.
On the other hand, submission for the respondents was that it is established
F by the evidence that the grant was of a part of the village and was not
expressed in acreage or cawnies and thus would be covered by Explanation
1 (a) of Section 2 (11). In order to substantiate that the area of the aforesaid
two Mela and Kizha was described in an acreage etc. reliance was placed for
the appellant on the following observations in Karumbavira Vanniar (Supra);
G
H
"This position is made clear from the paimash accounts and the
subsequent surveys. Mala Thattimal, which till 1919 formed part of
Rajagiri village, covered as we said an extent of 26-21 acres. In the
Paimash accounts of the year 1829 the area was designated by Nos.
1272 to 1302. In the survey of the year 1886 the area was represented
by S.No. I I ofRajagiri. In the land register of the year l9I9, the area
was given Nos. 45 to 49 in the newly formed No. 5, Arayapuram
-
-
---
R.E.M.S. ABDUL HAMEED v. GOVINDARAJU [MISRA, J. ] 1019
Thattimal PadugaL ..
A
Now, coming to Kizha Thattimal, which covered on area of 26744 acres they were represented Nos. 335 to 614 in the Paimash account
of the Taraf Village of Papanasam. In the survey of 1886 the
corresponding numbers were S.Nos. l to 10 in No. 2, Arayapuram
Thattimal Padugai . The position continued to be the same in the B ,
survey of 1921. But in the Record of Rights Register, they have been
given S.Nos. l to 56 in No. 5, Arayapuram Thattimal Padugai."
The reference of the acreage therein was relied. The High Court rejected this
submission holding that this collateral references of paimash account and
subsequent survey were compiled after the grant, hence it could not be C
concluded it was so described in the grant itself. It further records that the
grant was only of two distinct portions in two different villages wherein there
is no specific mention of its extent, hence it would not fall under (b) of
Explanation l of Section 2(11) and so the notification by the Government
under the Act No. 30 of 1963 cannot be sustained. The High Court finally D
concluded, having regard to the definition of minor inam in Section 2 (9) of
the Act No. 30 of 1963 read with the definition of a 'part village inam estate'
in Section 2 (11) of the Act No. 26 of 1963, the Tribunal was right in setting
aside the order of the Settlement Officer and the notification of the Government
under Act No. 30 of 1963. It is this judgment which is the subject matter of
the present appeals. It is significant that the State Government has not filed E
any appeal against it. Though it is one of the respondents but has not made
any submission either way. It is also not in dispute, the original grant has not
been filed and is not on the record.
The central question in issue is, the interpretation of sub-clause (b ),
Explanation l to Section 2 (11) of the Act No. 26of1963. Learned counsels, F
for the aforesaid respective appellants, Mr. Tripurari Ray and Mr. A.T.M.
Sampath senior counsel, submit on the facts of this case, the disputed land
cannot be construed to be 'part village inam estate' to fall within Act No. 26
of 1963 but is a minor Inam to fall under Act No. 30 of 1963. Before taking
up this issue of 'part village inam estate', it is necessary to look back to the G
history of inam lands, how it emerged, recognised, canalised and dealt with
through various enactments till it reached into the legislative umbrella of both
Act Nos. 26 and 30 of 1963. The law relating to the land holdings, agrarian
reform, in the Presidency town of Madras, with reference to the landlords and
ryots started from the previous century and it is interesting to note few of
the essential features of this agrarian development. The origin of inam tenure H
1020
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1999] 2 S.C.R.
A
is traced back to its grant made by Hindu rulers for the support of temples
and charitable institutions, for th~ maintenance of holy and learned men
rendering public service, etc. This practice was followed by the Muhammadan
rulers and by British administrators until about a century ago. According to
the ancient Hindu Law, there were two beneficial interests in land, namely, (1)
B
that of the sovereign or his representative, and (2) that of the cultivator
holding the land. The sovereign's right to collect a share of the produce of
the cultivated land was known by the name 'melvaram', the share of the ryot
or cultivator was known by the name 'kudivaram'. The ryot's right arose from
occupation of the land. Thus, the grant of an inam did not touch, and could
not have touched, the cultivator's right in the land, namely, the kudivaram,
C
except in rare cases where the grantor was also holding the cultivator's
interest at the time of the grant.
It is also relevant to refer to Madras lnams Act, 1869 (Madras Act VIII
of 1869). This Act declares that the enfranchisement of an inam and the grant
of a title deed to the inamdar should not be deemed to define, limit, infringe
D the right of any description of holder or occupier of the land from which the
inam was derived. Thus, the right of an inamdar does not ordinarily extend
to the full proprietorship of the land, especially in the case where the inam
consisted of an entire village. Thus, inam villages were treated as estates on
exactly the same footing as zamindaris in the Madras Regulations of 1802 and
E
1822, the Madras Rent Recovery Act, 1865, the Madras Proprietary Estates
Village Service Act, 1894 (Madras Act II of 1894) and Madras Hereditary
Village Officers Act, 1895 (Madras Act III of 1895) and it ultimately resulted
into Madras Estates Land Act, 1908.
F
The Madras Estates Land Act (Act No. I of 1908), (hereinafter referred
to the 1908 Act) came into force which is the first major enactment in the
Presidency of Madras controlling and defining the rights of the landholders
and ryots. Prior to that both zamindars and ryots were subjected to and
treated under the Madras Regulations of 1802 and Regulation No. IV of 1822.
The 1908 Act repealed the Madras Rent Recovery Act (VIII of 1865). This Act
G not only safeguarded the interest of the cultivators but also of the landlords
including collection of rents. It is interesting to record here the concern
expressed by Hon'ble Mr. Forbes on this subject while introducing the Original
Estates Land Bill in the Council, which is quoted hereunder:
"The ancient zamindars are being displaced by new men who have no
H
traditional connection with the soil, and whose action will be guided
~-
..
R.E.M.S. ABDUL HAMEED v. GOVINDARAJU [MISRA, J.] 1021
solely by commercial or selfish motives, and who will strain the laws A
to its utmost limits. A Law is a bad Law which gives opportunities for
diverting its power to oppress the poor and weak. Moreover, unless
rights are firmly fixed and declared the slow process of erosion
imperceptibly wears them away. The zamindar is the flood stream; the
ryot, the river bank. Not only justice to a weak class, who are specially B
in need of the protection of the strong arm, but on every ground
political and economic the Government could not sit by impassive.
The Government have to hold the scales evenly, distributing the
benefits of the Act both to the landlord and tenant, remembering that
the value of a thing to a person does not depend on its intrinsic cost. C
On the side of the zamindar, he is given a charge over the ryot's
holding - a first charge indefeasible by any encumbrance; he has been
given the right to enhance rent with reference to rise in prices;
On the other side, the ryot has been confirmed in his rights; he
is secured in the occupancy of his holding from which he cannot be D
ejected so long as he pays his khist; nor can his khist be enhanced
except by suit before the Collector; and he is given the right to have
the irrigation of his fields secured;
Looking at both sides it must be admitted that the Government
has, as far as it lay in its power, discharged with equal justice its E
obligations to safeguard the established rights of both zamindars and
ryots, in the sense of the old Regulation IV of 1822.
The intervention of the Government is thus as much to the benefit
of the landholders as of the ryot. All that is done for the ryot is to
protect him against the horrors or arbitrary eviction, against the p
oppression of rackrents and to secure to him his right to enjoy his
established share of the produce, conditions which are essential to
the stability of an agricultural community and the undoubted and
ancient right of the Madras ryot."
The aforesaid observations by Hon. Mr. Forbes gives clear indication of the G
objects and reasons for introducing the 1908 Act. It is interesting to see how
even at that time the exploitations by the haves for commercial and selfish
ends down right were condemned and provisions made to protect the
oppressed, poor and weak. Subsequently, by Madras Amending Act No. IV
of 1909 the definition of 'rent' as given under the 1908 Act was changed with
an object that the land holder should not employ the machinery of the Act H
1022
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1999] 2 S.C.R.
A for the recovery of quit rents from intermediate landholders. but s~ek his
remedy only through civil courts. Next Madras Act VII of 1934 brought
various changes for the benefit the ryots. This was followed by Madras Act
1of1936 amending.1908 Act to bring in inam villages in which the inamdar
had the kudivaram interest within the purview of 1908 Act. It is interesting .
B
after this was passed, His Excellency the Governor General withheld his
assent to the provisions in the Madras Estates Land Amendment Act of 1934
under which occupancy rights were to be conferred o.n tenants in inam
villages even though kudivaram interest may have been granted to the inamdars.
This led to the appointment of a Selec.t Committee which drafted another bill
giving effect to the suggestion made by His Excellency the Governor General
C which made into Madras Estates Land (Third Amendment) Act XVIII of 1936.
D
E
F
By this definition of 'estate' in Section 3 (2)(d) of the 1908 Act was amended
to bring within its scope any inam village of which the grant has been made,
confirmed or recognised by the British Government: By virtue of new Section
23 a presumption was laid down that an inam village was an estate even
before the commencement of the aforesaid 1936 Act. There were SOQle other
amendments also but are not relevant for this case. Then came the two Acts,
namely, Act No. 26 of 1963 and Act No. 30 of 1963. Prior"to these two
enactments there were two forms of inam (i) the full inam; where whole village
comprised of inam and (ii) part inam or· minor inam, where part ofvillage was
.
~
given in inam.
We now herewith give some of the decisions as how they_ have
understood and interpreted the said relevant provisions including the
provisfons to which we are concerned.
In Act No. 26 of 1963 it .is necessary to refer to some of the definitions
to appreciate this case and some of the decisions given by courts. Subsection ( 4) Of Section 2 defines 'existing inam estate' means an inam village
which became an estate by virtue of the Madras Estates Land (Third
Amendment) Act, 1936 (Madras Act XVIII of 1936). Sub-section (7) defines
'inam estate' means an existing inam estate or a new inam estate. Sub-section
(9) defines 'new inam estate' means a 'part village inam estate' or a Pudukkottai
G inam estate. Sub-section (11) of Section 2 defines 'part village inam estate',
which is quoted hereunder;
~ ..
"(1 I) 'part village inam estate' means a 'part of a village (including a
part. o.f a. village in the merged territory of Pudukkotiai) the grant of
which part has been made, confirmed or recognised by the Government,
H
notwithstanding that subsequent to the grant, such part has been
--
-
-
R.E.M.S. ABDUL HAMEED v. GOVINDARAJU [MISRA, J. ] 1023
partitioned among the grantees or the successors-in-title of the grantee A
or grantees.
Explanation I. - (a) Where the grant of a part of a village as an
inam is expressed to be a specified fraction of, or a specified number
of shares in, a village, such part shall be deemed to be a part village
inam estate notwithstanding that such grant refers also to the extent B
of such part in terms of acreage or cawnies, or of other local equivalent.
(b )' Where a grant as in inam is expressed to be only in terms of
acreage or cawnies, or of other local equivalent, the area which forms
the subject- matter of the grant shall not be deemed to be a part
village inam estate.
C
Explanation n. - A part of a village granted in inam shall be
deemed to be a part village inam estate notwithstanding that different
parts of such part village were granted, confirmed or recognised on
different dates or by different title-deeds or in favour of different
persons;"
The 'minor inam' defined under sub-section (9) of Section 2 of Act No. 30 of
1963. The relevant portion is quoted hereunder:
"(9) 'Minor inam' means -
(i)
any inam which is not -
(a)
an estate within the meaning of sub-clause (d) of clause (2) of
section 3 of the (Tamil Nadu) Estate Land Act, 1908 (Tamil Nadu
Act I of 1908); or
D
E
(b) a new inam estate as defined in clause (9) of section 2 of the F
Inam Estates Abolition Act; or (c) an estate within the meaning
of sub-clause (d) of clause (2) of section 3 of the (Tamil Nadu)
Estate land Act, 1908 (Tamil Nadu Act I of 1908), as in force in
the territories specified in the Second Schedule to the Andhra
Pradesh and (Tamil Nadu) (Alteration of boundaries) Act, 1959 G
(Central Act L VI of 1959);"
In Secretary of State v. Veliveldpalli Mal/ayya & Ors., AIR (1932) PC
238, (From Madras) recognised the two forms of inams. It records:
"It is usual to divide inams into two classes, namely, (I) major and (2}'
minor. Technically a major inam is a whole village or more than one H
1024
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1999] 2 S.C.R.
A
village, and a minor inam is something less than a village."
B
c
D
E
F
It further defined and held:
"A Khandrika means a small hamlet. It is a large block of land granted
as inam, less than a village, but much larger than an ordinary inam."
In HR. Sathyanarayana Rao v. The State of Tamil Nadu, (1977)
Madras Law Journal 305, reliance is placed· on the following passage :
"This is also clear from the fact that Explanation 1 (b) excludes where
the grant is of an extent of land. If the grant was of a specified fraction
of a village or a specified number of shares in a village, the inam
would not be covered by the definition of inam estate under section
2(7) of the Madras Act XXVI OF 1948 and it would also not be an
existing inam under section 2(4). It is those inams that were sought
to be covered under section 2(11) of the Madras Act XXVI of 1963.
If, 'part inam village' is understood as literally meaning any part of a
village then that will directly come under Explanation l(b) to section
2(11). All those inams which related to a part of a village of with
reference to specified extent of land, in my opinion, would be 'covered
by the definition of minor inam in Madras ACT XXX of 1963 a!ld it
would not be a part village inam estate under section 2(11). I am
therefore of the opinion that Marasandram village is also not a 'part
village inam estate'. The result of it is the notification of the village
under Madras Act XXVI of 1963 was not valid and is liable to be set
aside and it is accordingly set aside."
This case records in order to come within the definition of an inam estate
three essential conditions have to be satisfied, namely, (i) the grant should
be of both the warams or of melwaram to a person already owning the
Kudivaram thereof; (ii) it should be of the whole village or named village and
(iii) the grant should be made, confirmed or recognised by the British
Government. There the question was whether Marasandram village could be
G said to be a confirmation of grant of a whole village? The Court records:
H
"Where the grants of two minor inams and portion or the village
remaining thereafter were confinned by the Inams Commissioner
separately and three separate title deeds were issued, and the Inam
Commissioner had recognised by confinnation of the part of the
village the title of the grantee derived from the original grant, it could
-
-
... _
-
--
R.E.M.S. ABDUL HAMEED v. GOVINDARAJU [MISRA, J. ] 1025
not be said to be a confirmation of a whole village. Marasandram A
village was not an 'existing inam estate' within the meaning of section
2(9) of the Madras Act XXVI of 1963."
In Sri Akkaloi Ammani Chatram v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1980) Madras
Law Journal, 67 (Full Bench), the Court considered both the Acts, namely, Act B
No. 26of1963 and Act No. 30of1963. This is also a case with reference to
the estate of Raja Thanjavur, as is the case under consideration by us also.
The question in issue in this case is similar to the question in issue before
us.