# T. S. PL. P. CHIDAMBARAM CHETI1AR v. T. K. B. SANTHANARAMASWAMI ODAYAR & ORS - **Citation:** [1968] 2 S.C.R. 754 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1968-01-10 - **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 54 to 65, 67 and 69 to 71 of 1963 - **Bench:** J. C. Shah, V. R.Amaswamj, V. Bhargava - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/t-s-pl-p-chidambaram-cheti1ar-v-t-k-b-santhanaramaswami-odayar-ors-4206 - **Pages:** 13 ## Headnote B Madras Estates Land Act I of 1908, .vs. 3(2)(d), 3(10)(b) and 3(16)-Lalfd.< in Orathur Padugai In Tanjore Palace Estate wheth~ /1111 undtr dtfinition of 'estatt' ;,. s. 3(2) (d)-Tanjort PaJact Estate whether crtatM by grant--Orathur Padugai whether a wholt villDgt or part of a l'iU~Distinction bttwun 'priwut land' as dtfined in s. 3(10)(h) and 'ryOli lend' as dtfined in·'· 3( 16). When the Raja of Tanjore died in 1855 without leaving male iSiue tbe East India Company tool< possession of all his properties including his private property. However on a memorial being presented by the seruor widow of the late Raja, the Go•ernment of India in 1862 "sanctioned the relinquishment of the whole of the landed property of the Tanjore Raja in favour of the heirs of the late Raja." The Tanjore Palace Estate thus eame into existence. In 1948 the appellant purchased certain lands situate in Orathur Padugai which was part of the aforesaid Tanjore Palace Estate, and thereafter institute-O suits for possession of these lands from variOUI defendants. The trial court dismissed the suir. on the ground th•t the lands were situated in an 'estate' unde.- s. 3(2)(d) of the Madras E.italel Lands Act I of 1908 and they were 'ryoti lands' as defined in s. 3(16) in which the defendants had acquired occupancy rights. The Madras High Coult affirmed the decree, whereupon the appellant came to thia Court. It .,. .. contended on behalf of the appeHant that (i) the lands did Bot form an 'estate' under 1. 3(2)(d) of the afore .. id Act be<:ausc the r....toration of the land to the widows of the Raja of Tanjore did not amount to a fresh grant but only a restoration of the .ftaJus quo aJt1t; (ii) that Grathur Padugai was not a whole vinage "'' required by the definition ol 'estate'; (iii) the widows of the Raja enjoyed both the •wa..,.ms' and tho la.ado pW'chascd by the appellant were 'private lands' in•· 3(10)(b) so that the defendants did not have any occupancy rights therein. HF.LO : (i) The relinquishment by the Government of India in favour of the widows of the Raja in 1862 ..... a fresh grant a.< already held in s~ cases. In view of the authorities it could no longer be questioned thal the Tanjore Palace E.rivate lands. [766 C-G] D E F G H Ytrlagadda Malikariuna Prasad Nayudu v. Somayya, l.L.R. 42 Mad. 400 (P.C.), referred to with approval. · CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 54 to 65, 67 and 69 to 71 of 1963. Appeals from the judgment and decree dated January 10. 1956 of the Madras High Court in Appeal Suit Nos. 223 and 224 of 1951, and 264 to 273,·275 and 277 to 279 of 1952. -'R. Kesava Iyengar, R. Thiagarajan and R. Ganapathy Iyer, for the appellants (in all the appeals). Bishan Narain and 0. P. Malhotra, for respondent No. 1 (in C.A. Nos. 54 and 55 of 1963). M. R. K. Pi//ai, for respondent No. 2 (in C.A. No. 55 of 1 %3) and for the respondents (in C.As. Nos. 56 to 65, 67 to 7l of 1963). · The Judgment of the Cour~ was delivered by Ramaswami, J. These appeals are brought against the judgment and decree in A.S. nos. 223 and .224 of 1951, 264 to 273 of 1952, 275 of 1952 and 277 to 279 of 1952 of the M:idras High Court dated January _10, 1956 af)irming. the judgment and decree in O.S. nos. 75"; 77 to 81 of 1949 and 19 to 22, 24 to 26, 28 & 30 to 31 of 1950 of the Subordinate Judge, Tanjore. The appellant instituted the above-mentioned suits for recovery of possession frorri the respective defendants of the disputed lands and for payment of damages at the rate of Rs. ·50/- per annum per acre. The case of the appellant was that the disputed lands which were purchased by him by a sale deed dated November IL 1948 (Ex. A-145) are situated in Orathur Padugai which is attached to Pannimangalam, one of the villages comprised in what is known as the "Tanjore Palace Estate'', that 756 SUPRF.MI! COURT REPORTS (1968] 2 S CR. ·the said lands are not si1ua1ed in an es late as defined by the Madras Estates Land Act I of 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and in any event the said lands are 'private lands' of the appcllanl and no1 'ryoti lands' as defined in the Act and the various defendants are tfespassers in unlawful occupation of the lands and had no right to continue in possession and were therefore liable to ejectment. The appellant also claimed that the defendants were· liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. SO/- per annum per acre in respect of the lands in their unlawful occupation. The defence in all the suits was substantially the same. It was contended by the defendants that the disputed lands are situated in an cstalc within the meaning of s. 3(2) (d) of the Act, that the lands arc 'ryoti lands' in which they have pcrman~nt right of occupancy and that they arc not "private lands" as alleged by the appellant and the civil court had therefore no jurisdiction to entertain the suits and the Revenuo Courts alone had jurisdiction. By his two judgments dated Octobor 31, 1950 and February 2, 1951, the Subordinate Judge, Tanjore dismissed the suits, holding that the lands were situnted in an estate and w. ce 'ryoti lands' in which the defendants w1rc entitled to occupancy rights. The appellant took the matter in appeal to the Madras High Court which affirmed the decision of the trial court and dismissed all the appeals. The two principal questions which are presen1ed for determination in these appeals are : (I) whether the suit-lands are located in an estate within the meaning of s. 3 (2) ( d) of the Act, and (2) if the answer to the first question is in the affirmative. whether the suil-lands are 'private lands' or 'ryo1i lands' as defined in the Act. Section 3 ( 2 )( d) of the Act. as originally enacted slates : "3. In this Act, unless 1here is something repugnanl in the subject or context :- (2) 'Es1a1e' means- ( d) any village of which the land revenue alcn~ has been granted in inam to a person not owning the kudivaram thereof, provided that the grant has been made, confirmed or recognised by the British Government, or A B c D E F G any separated part of such village;'' H The section was amended by the Madras Estates Land (Third Amcndmenc) Act 18 of 1936 to the following effect : A B c D E F G H CHIDAMBARAM v. T. K, B. ODAYAR (Ramaswami, /.) 757 " ( d) any inam village of which the grant has been made, confirmed or recognised by the British Gowrnment, notwithstanding that subsequent to the grant, the village has been partitioned among .the grantees, or the successors in title of the grantee or grantees. Explanation ( 1 ) : Where an inam village is resumed by the Government, it shall cease to be an estate; bui, if any villag~ so rc>- sum¢ is subsequently regranted by the Government as an inam, it shall, from the ·date of such re-grant be regarded as an .estate. Explanation (2): • Where a portion of an inam village is resumed by the Government, such portion shall cease to be part of the estate, but the rest of the village shall be deemed to be an inam village for the purposes of this sub-clause. If the portion· so resumed or any part, thereof is subsequently regranted by the Government as an inam, such portion or part shall, from the date of such re-grant be· regarded as.forming parl of the inam village for the purposes of this sub-clause." By s. 2 of the Madras Act II of 1945 s. 3 of the Act was further amended as follows : "Section .2 : ( 1) In sub-clause ( d) of clause ( 2) of s. 3 of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) Explanations (.I) and (2) shall be renumbered as Explanations (2) and (3) respectively and the following shall be inserted as Explanation ( l), namely: Explanation ( 1 ) : Where a grant as an inam is expressed to be of a named village, the area which forms the subjectmatter of the grant shall be deemed to be an estate notwithstanding that it did not include certain lands in the village of that· name which have already been granted on seryice or other tenure or been reserved for communal purposes : (2) The amendment made by sub-section (1} be deemed to have had effect as from the date on which the Madras Estates Land (Third· Amendment) Act, 758 • SUPREME OoUl\T REPORTS (1968] 2 S.CR. 1936 came into force and the said Amendment shall be read and construed accordingly for all purposes;" Section 3 ( 19) of the Act has defined a "Village" as follows : " 'Village' means any local area situated in or .:onstituting an estate which is designated as a village in the revenue accounts and for which the revenue accounts arc separately maintained by one or more kamams or which is now recognised by the State Government or may hereafter be declared by the State Government for the purposes of this Act to be a village, and includes any hamlet or hamlets which may be attached thereto." The .history of what is known as the "Tanjore Palace Estarc'.' is wcll•known and will be found in various reported decisions of the Judicial Committee and of the Madras'High Court : (Sec Jijoyiamba Bayi Saiba v. Km1u.·l·shi Bayi Saiba('), Su11daram Ayyar v. Ramachandra Ayyar('), Maharaja of Kolhapur v. Sundaram Iyer (3) and Chota Raja Saheb Mohitai v. Sund ram Iyer('). In 1799, Serfoji, the then Raja of Tanjore, surrendered his terri1ory into the hands of the East India Company, but he was allowed to retain possession of certain vill~ges and lands which constitu1ed his private property. When his son the lasl }{aja died in 1855 without leaving male issue. the East India Company took possession of all his properties including his private property. Thereupon the senior widow. Kamachee Boye Sahaba filed a Bill on the Enquiry Side of the Supreme Court of Madras, and obtained a decree lhat the seizure of the private properties was wrong. On appeal by lhc Secretary of State in Council of India, the Privy Council reversed lhe decree, and ordered the dismissal of the Bill. Thereafter, a memorial was submitted to the Queen and in 1862 the Government of India which had succeeded the East India Company "sanctioned the relinquishment cf the whole of the landed property of the Tanjore Raj in favour of the heirs of the late Raja". Under instructions from the Government of India, the Government of Madras, on August 2 f, 1862, passed an order the material part of which is as follows : "In Col. Durand's letter above recorded the Gov~rn ment of India have furnished their instructions with reference to the disposal of the landed property of the Tanjore Raj regarding whicfi this Government addressed them under date the 17th May last. Their decision (I) 3 M.H.CR. 424. (l) 1.t.R. 48 Mad. I. (2) U.R. 40 M•d. 389 (4) 61 I.A. 224. • A B c D E ' H A B c D E F G H CHIDAMBARAM v. T ... I(, B. ODAYAR (Ramaswami, I.) 759 is to the effect, that 'since it is doubtful whether the Jandl; in question can be legally dealt with . as State property, and since the plea in equity and policy, for treating them as the private property of the Raja is so stront1 that it commands the unanimous support of the members of the Madras Government,' the whole of the lands are to bq relinquished in favour of the heirs of the late Raja (page 228)." The Tanjore Palace Estate came into being as a result of this grant. The question in these appeals is whether the property involved in the suits being a part of the Tanjore Palace Estate can be considered to be. an "estate" within the meaning of the term in the Act. It was conceded by the Counsel for the appellant that if it was part of all' inam it would be an 'estate' within the meaning of that Act. It was, however, contended that the manner in which the property reverted to the widows of the Raja in l 862 after an act of State did not show that the estate was freshly granted but wls restored to the widows who enjoyed both the wararns, in the same way as the warams were enjoyed before. To put it differently, the argiiment was that the effect of restoration or relinquishment was only the undoing of the wrong and therefore if the villages were the private properties of the Raja at the time of the seizure then the same character is maintained when tliey were handed back to his widow. The contention was that what actually happened in 1862 was the restoration of the status quo anttt rather than a fresh grant by the British Government. The ar~ment is not a new one but has been raised before arid reiected in a number of authorities. In Jijayiamba Bayi Saiba v. Kamakshi Biryi Saiba(') it was held by the Madras High Court that the Government Order, 1862 was a grant of grace and favour to persons .who had forfeite.:1 aJJ claims to the personal properties of the Rajah by the act. of State and was not a revival of any antecedent rights which they might have had. A similar orinion of the grant was expressed in a Full' Bench case of the Madras High Court in Sumlaram Ayyar v. Ramachandra Ayyar('). But in Maharaja of Kolhapur v. Sundaram Iyer(•), Spencer, 0.C.J., appearef Orathur village in Pannimangalam vattam. Exhibits A-153 to A-155 and A-157 ire all lease deeds between the years from 1901 to 1906 relating to lea'le of lands in Orathur padugai. It is manifest that there is sufficient evidence to show that from 1868 right up to 1907 Orathur padugai was considered as ·a separate village. It was contended for the respondents that even after the passing of the Act Orathur padugai was treated as a separate village. Reference was made in this connection to a number of documents, E:ts. A-158, A-105, A-159, A-106, A-116, A-161, B-17, A-117 to A-120, B-18, A-121, A- I 62 and A-163. In our opinion, the finding of the lower courts that Orathur padugai is a whole village and therefore ~on stitutes an 'estate' within the meaning of the Acl is supported by p1 o;ier evidence and Counsel for the appellant is unable to make good his argument that the finding of the lower courts is in any way defective in law. We proceed to consid.er the next question arising in •his case, viz .. whether the suit-lands are 'private lands' within the meaning of s. 3 ( I 0) ( b) of the Act which reads as follows : "3. In this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context- (I 0) 'Private land'- (b) in the case of an estate within the meaning <>f subclause ( d) of clause (2), means- ( i) the domain or home-farm land of the landholder, by whatever designation known, such as, kambattam, khas, sir or pannai; nr (ii) land which is proved to have been cultivated as private land by the landholder himself, by his own servants or by hired labour, with his own or hired stock, for a continuous period of twelve years, immediately before the first day of J\llY 1908, provided that the landholder has retained the kudivaram ever since and has not converted the land into ryoti land; or (iii) land which is 1_Jroved to have been cultivated by landholder himself, by his own servants or by hired labour, with his own or hired stock. for a continuous period of twelve yeallS ·immediately before the first day of NDvember 1933, provided that the landholder has A B c D F G H II ~ I j ' A B c D F G CHIDAMBARAM v. T. JC. B. ODAYAR (Ramaswami I.) 763 retained the lmdivaram ever since and has not converted the land into ryoti land; or (iv) land the entire kudivaram in which was acquired by the landholder before the first day of No_vember 1933 for valuable consideration from a person owning the kudivaram but not the melvaram, provided that the landholder has retained the kudivararii ever since and has not converted the land into ryoti land, and provided further that, where the kudivaram wa~ acquired at a sale for arrears of rent the land shall not be deemed. to be private land unless it is proved to have been cultivated oy the land holder himself, by his own servants or by hired labour, with his own or hired stock, for a continuous period of twelve years since the acquisition of the land and before the commencement of the Madras Estates Land (Third Amendment) Act, 1936.'' Section 3(16) of the Act defines 'Ryoti land' as follows: " 'Ryoti land' means cultivable land in an estate other than· private land out does not include-·- ( a) beds and bunds of t;mks and of supply, drainage, surplus or irrigation channels; (b) threshing-floor, cattle-stands, village-sites, and other lands situated in any estate which are set apart for the common use of the villagers; ( c) lands granted on service tenure either free of rent or on favourable rates of rent if granted before the passing of this Act or free of rent if granted after that date, so long as the service tenure subsists." Section 185 of the Act enacts a presumption that land in inam village is not private land and reads as follows : "185. When. in any suit or proceeding it becomes necessary to determine whether any land is the landholder's private land, regard shall be had-- ( 1) to local custom, (2) in the case of an estate within the meaning of subclause (a), (b), (c), or (e) of clause (2) of section 3, to the question whether the land· was before the first day of Jtily 1898, specifically Jet as. private land, and H (3) to any other evidence that may be produced :. Provided that the land shall be presumed not to be private land until the contrary is proved: 764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ J 968] 2 S.C.R. Provided f11rther that in the cao;e of an estate within A the meaning of sub-clause (d) of clause (2) of section 3- ( i) any expression in a lease, patta or the like, executed or issued on or after the first day of July, 1918 to the effect or implying that a tenant h~s no right of occupancy or that his right of occupancy is limited or restricted in any manner, shall not be admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving that tile land concerned was p~ivate land at the commencement of the tenancy; and (ii) any such expression in a lea~e, patta or the like, executed 0r issued before the first day of July 1918, shall not by itselfbc. sufficient for the purpose of proving that the land concerned was private land at the commencement of the tenancy." Secticn 6 is to the following effect : "6. (I) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every ryoi now in possession or who shall hereafter be admitted by a landholder to possession of ryoti land situated in the estate of such landholder shall have a permanent right of occupancy in his holding. Explanation ( 1 ) .-For the purposes of this sub-seciion, the expression 'every ryot now in possession' shall in· elude every per;on who, having held land as a ryot continues in posses~ion of such la.'!d at the commencement of this Act. " The Subordinate Judge and the High Court have concurrently come to the conclusion, upon consideration of the e\•idence, that the lands in suit are not private lands but ryoti lands. On hehalf of the appellant Mr. Kesava Iyengar conceded that onus is on the appellant to show that the lands are 'private lands' within the meaning of the Act, but the argument was stressed that t}ie lower courts have failed to take into account certain important documents filed on behalf of the appellant, viz .. A-128, A-129 and the Paimash account dated August 25, 1830, Ex. A-147 and the Land Registor, Ex.A-134. In our opinion. there is no warrant for the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant. As regards Exs. A-128 and A-129 it is apparent that apart from the question as to the identity of the land, they relate to a period p=-ious to the grant of 1862 which alone constitules the root of title of the grantees and there is no question of restoration or revival of any anterior right. The same rcallOtjing applies to the Paimash account dated August 25, 1830, Ex. A-147 which B c D E F G H • , ... ,,.~·· A B c D E ' G H \ CH!DAMBARAM v. T. K. B. ODAYAR (Ramaswami, I.) 765 cannot, therefore, be held to be of much relevance in this connection. Reliance was placed on behalf of the. appellant on Ex. A-134, the Land Register for Pannimangalam which shows that in Orathur Thauimal Padugai" which consists of Punjais (dry lands) and arc rain-fed, the land-holder (the Tanjore Palace· Estate) owns both the warams (lruwaram in vernacular). It was argued· for the appellant that the expression 'lruwaram' means that the land was owned as Pannai or private Janda. Reference wa' made to the record of rights and Irrigation Memoir dated January ) 3, 1935, Ex. B-8 which shows that. the Janda are lr111mram and there are no wet lands. But the use of the expression "Jruwaram" in these dccuments is not decisivt; of the question whether the land is private land of the appellant or not. Under s. 3 ( 10) of the Act. private land comprises of two cam. gories. private hmds technically so-called. and lands deemed to be private lands. Jn regard to private lands technically so-called, it must be the domain or home-farm land of the landholder aa understood in law. The mere fact that particular lands are described in popular parlance as pannai kambattam. sir, khas, is not decisive of the question unless the lands so-called partake of the characteristics of domain or homefarm lands. In our opinion the correct test to ascertain whether a land is domain or. home-farm is that accepted by the Judicial Commi1tee in Yerlagadda. Malikarjtma Prasad Nayudu v. Somayya('), that is, whether it is land which a zamindar has cultivated himself and intends to retain as resumable for cultivation by himself even if from time to time he demises for a season. The Legislature did not use the words 'domain or home-farm land' without attaching to them a meaning; and it is reasonable to suppose that the Legislature would attach to these words the meaning which would be given to them in ordinary English. It seems to us that the sub-clause {b )(i) of the' definition is intended to cover those lands which come obviously within Y:hat would ordinarily be recognised as the domain or home-farm, that is to say, lands appurtenant to the landholder's residence and kept for his enjoyment and use: The home-farm is land which the landlord cultivates himsef, as distinct from land which he lets out to tenants to be farmed. The first clause is, therefore meant to include and signify those lands which are in the ordinary sense of . the word home-farm lands. The other clauses of the definition appear to deal with those lands which would not r.ecessarily be regarded as home-farm lands in the ordinary usage of the term; and with reference to those lands there is a proviso that lands purchased at a sale for arrears of revenue shall not he regarded as private lands unless cultivated directly by the landlord for the required nerimL It seems to us that the definition reads as a whole (ll .1.1..R. 42 Mad. 4 (P.C.). L3 Sup. Cl/68-5 166 SUPREME COURT llEPOllTS [1968] 2 S.C.R. indica~ clearly that the ordinary test for 'private land' is the test of retention by the landholder for his personal use and cultivation by him or under his personal super>'ision. No doubt, auch lands may be let on short leases for the convenience of the landholder without losing their distinctive character; but it is not the intention or the scheme of the Act to treat as private those lands with ref.erence to which the only peculiarity is the fact that the landJgrd owns both the warams in the lands and has been letting them out on short term leases. There must, iu our opinion be something in the evidence either by way of pro0f of direct cultivation o• by some clear indication of an intent to regard these lands as retained for the personal use of the landholder and his establishment in order to place those lands in the apecial c;itegory of private lands in which a tenant under the Act cannot acquire occupancy rights. In the present case there i~ no proof that the lands were ever directly cultivated by the landholder. Admittedly, soon after the grant of 1862 the estate came under the administration of Receivers, who always let out the lands to the tenants t0 be cultivated. In Ex. B-8, the Record of Rights the lands are entered in column 5 as Punja ot dry land. In column 4 which requires the entry to be made as private land they arc not entered as private lands. Ii was argued for the appellant that the lands are sometimes called 'Padugai' and that the expression meant that the lands were within the ftood bank and forming part of the river bed. But the description of the land as 'Padugai' is not of much consequence because they are also called as Orathur 'Thottam', thottam meaning a garden where garden crops are raised to distinguish it from paddy fields. It appears that the lands actually lie between two rivers and comprise more than l 00 acres, and by their physical feature cannot be 'padugai' in the sense in which the term is normally used. The argument was stressed on bel}alf of the appellant that leasing rights of the land were auctioned periodically. But the Righ Court has observed that one and the same tenant continued to bid at the auction and there was evidence that tenants continued A B c D ' to cultivate the lands without break or change, and the fact that there were periodical auctions of the lease right~ ldid not necesc sarily deprive the tenants of the occupancy tjghts which they. were enjoying. We accordingly hold that the appellant has. not G adduced sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption under s. 185 · of the Act that the lands in the inam village are not private lands . and the argument of the appellant on this aspect of the case must be rejected. For the reasons expressed we hold that the judgment of the Madras High Court dated January 10, 1956 is correct and these appeals must be dismissed with costs--0ne set of hearing fee. G. C. Appeals dismis.fed. H •