# "''"uarJ 20. 324 SOPREME COURT REPoRTS [1962) SUPP. GONDu.'.IJOGULA TATAYYA v. J>ENUMATCHA A2\'ANDA VJJAYA VENKATAHAMA THfMA ,JAGAPATHH~AJL'

- **Citation:** [1962] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 324
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962
- **Case number:** CIVIL APPELLATE JumsDICTION: C. As. Nos. 631 to 645 of 1960
- **Bench:** S. K. Das, M. HlllAYATULLAI!, J.C. Shah
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/uarj-20-324-sopreme-court-reports-1962-supp-gondu-ijogula-tatayya-v-j-enumatcha-2382
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

fnan1. lands-Lcrts1-s-Right aj occupancy-Jfinor ina11u~ --
lr!ie1h1r Fslates --Tc.t--Jfadra" Est<11':• Land Act, 1908 (Jlad.
1 of JYll8), ""amended, s. 3(2)(d) and Explanation (1).
'fhc respondents v-·erc holders of inams in a village called
Gotcru, one of the Mokhasa yjlJ;Jgrs which ,,·ere included iu
the assets of the Zamindari at the time of the permanent
sctt!rment in 1802. The inan1s theinselves \\·ere pre-settlement
inams and were not included in the assets of the ZamincJari.
·rhc respondents had leased out scrr1c of the lands cou1prised
in their inams to the appellant for a fixed period, and in the
suits instituted against the latter .:iftcr the expiry of the period
of the leases for ejecting rhem f1om the holdings in their
possessions, they pleaded, inter alia, that they had got occupancy rights in the suit lands inasmuch as the inams \Vere part
of an estate and that, therefore, they \Vere not liable to he
ej('cted.
They contended that by reason of the amendments
made ins. 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, in
I 93G and I 9-t5, these minor inams being within the village of
Gotcru v-·erc estates und("r s. 3(2)(d), read with Explanation
( 1) of the Act.
It was not dispiHed that Goteru village was
included in the Jlukha"'' sanad of 1802 and that the Mokhasa
grant v0.-as an estate.
Jfeld, that the minor inams in the present case were not
);rants of v-·'1o!e villages and y.,·ere not, therefore, estates within
the meanins- ofs. 3(2)(dJ ol the Madras Estates Land, 1908.
1'he crucial test to find out \vhether a grant amounted
to an estate as defined under" 3(2)(d) of the Act was whether
at the time of the grant tl.c subject matter was a whole village
or o"nly a part of it.
If it \Vas only a part of a village, then
the: amending Act made no difference and such a part \Vould
not be an estate v-·ithin the rneaning of the term ; but if the
grant was of the whole village and a named one, then it \\'ottld
he an estate·
District Board, 1'anjuri; '" J/. K. "l!-loor Jfohamed llo1rtlicr,
A-1 !{. 1953 S.C. 446 and Jfontramdi Hhat'Gnaravana v. Meri:gn
Venkala<lu, 1-L.R. [1951] Mad. 116, relied on and applied.
..
-
-
3 s.C.R.
SUPREJME COURT REPORTS
325
CIVIL APPELLATE JumsDICTION: C. As. Nos.
631 to 645 of 1960.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment
and decree dated April 20, 1954, of the Madras
High Conrt in Second Appeals Nos. 1228 to 124:! of
1~9.
.
..
R. Mahalingier and Ganpat Rai, for the appellants.
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and T. V. R. Tatachari,
for the respondents.
1962. February 20. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
's. K. DAS, J.-These are fifteen appeals by
Apecial leave. They have been heard together as
they arise common question of law and fact and
thiB judgment will govern them all.
These appeals arise out of fifteen suits filed
by certain inamdars
(respondents herein) of a
village called Goteru for ejecting the tenants, who
are the appellants before us, from various holdings
in their possession after the expiry of the period
of their leases and for other reliefs, such as, arrears
of rent and damages.
Tho lands lie in village
Goteru, one of the villages in tho N nzvid zamindari.
Got<'ru, Komaravaram and S11rampudi are three·
:11 olchasa villages in the rnirl zamindari. It was
arlmitted that the M olchasas were included in the
assets of the z11minrlari at the time of the permanent settlement in 1802. Tho case of the inamdars
respond1mts was that in ei!lht of the suits the land
was a Krtrn<un service inam and in seven suits the
hnd w11s a Sarvad·umbala in am. These inams lands were
settlement inams and enfranchised by the Government on the basis that they were excluder! from the
assets of the Mmindari at the time of the perma·
. neut settlement and separate title deeds were subsJqu~ntly issue•I to the inamdars. According to
t4e ina~dars tqese ina~ l!~qdd >y"er'il
qot "e~t!\t\l~"
1962
Go1idumogula T4tayy•
••
Penumatclia Ananda
Vi1a a Venkala•
rama Timma.
J a1:apathiraJu
Das J,
1962
Gon·lumoyulo
Tal•.Y.J

## Text

1962
"''"uarJ 20.
324 SOPREME COURT REPoRTS [1962) SUPP.
GONDu.'.IJOGULA TATAYYA
v.
J>ENUMATCHA A2\'ANDA VJJAYA
VENKATAHAMA THfMA ,JAGAPATHH~AJL'
(AND COX~ECTJ<:D APPEALS)
(S. K. DAS, M. HlllAYATULLAI! and J.C. SHAH, JJ.)
fnan1. lands-Lcrts1-s-Right aj occupancy-Jfinor ina11u~ --
lr!ie1h1r Fslates --Tc.t--Jfadra" Est<11':• Land Act, 1908 (Jlad.
1 of JYll8), ""amended, s. 3(2)(d) and Explanation (1).
'fhc respondents v-·erc holders of inams in a village called
Gotcru, one of the Mokhasa yjlJ;Jgrs which ,,·ere included iu
the assets of the Zamindari at the time of the permanent
sctt!rment in 1802. The inan1s theinselves \\·ere pre-settlement
inams and were not included in the assets of the ZamincJari.
·rhc respondents had leased out scrr1c of the lands cou1prised
in their inams to the appellant for a fixed period, and in the
suits instituted against the latter .:iftcr the expiry of the period
of the leases for ejecting rhem f1om the holdings in their
possessions, they pleaded, inter alia, that they had got occupancy rights in the suit lands inasmuch as the inams \Vere part
of an estate and that, therefore, they \Vere not liable to he
ej('cted.
They contended that by reason of the amendments
made ins. 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, in
I 93G and I 9-t5, these minor inams being within the village of
Gotcru v-·erc estates und("r s. 3(2)(d), read with Explanation
( 1) of the Act.
It was not dispiHed that Goteru village was
included in the Jlukha"'' sanad of 1802 and that the Mokhasa
grant v0.-as an estate.
Jfeld, that the minor inams in the present case were not
);rants of v-·'1o!e villages and y.,·ere not, therefore, estates within
the meanins- ofs. 3(2)(dJ ol the Madras Estates Land, 1908.
1'he crucial test to find out \vhether a grant amounted
to an estate as defined under" 3(2)(d) of the Act was whether
at the time of the grant tl.c subject matter was a whole village
or o"nly a part of it.
If it \Vas only a part of a village, then
the: amending Act made no difference and such a part \Vould
not be an estate v-·ithin the rneaning of the term ; but if the
grant was of the whole village and a named one, then it \\'ottld
he an estate·
District Board, 1'anjuri; '" J/. K. "l!-loor Jfohamed llo1rtlicr,
A-1 !{. 1953 S.C. 446 and Jfontramdi Hhat'Gnaravana v. Meri:gn
Venkala<lu, 1-L.R. [1951] Mad. 116, relied on and applied.
..
-
-
3 s.C.R.
SUPREJME COURT REPORTS
325
CIVIL APPELLATE JumsDICTION: C. As. Nos.
631 to 645 of 1960.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment
and decree dated April 20, 1954, of the Madras
High Conrt in Second Appeals Nos. 1228 to 124:! of
1~9.
.
..
R. Mahalingier and Ganpat Rai, for the appellants.
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and T. V. R. Tatachari,
for the respondents.
1962. February 20. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
's. K. DAS, J.-These are fifteen appeals by
Apecial leave. They have been heard together as
they arise common question of law and fact and
thiB judgment will govern them all.
These appeals arise out of fifteen suits filed
by certain inamdars
(respondents herein) of a
village called Goteru for ejecting the tenants, who
are the appellants before us, from various holdings
in their possession after the expiry of the period
of their leases and for other reliefs, such as, arrears
of rent and damages.
Tho lands lie in village
Goteru, one of the villages in tho N nzvid zamindari.
Got<'ru, Komaravaram and S11rampudi are three·
:11 olchasa villages in the rnirl zamindari. It was
arlmitted that the M olchasas were included in the
assets of the z11minrlari at the time of the permanent settlement in 1802. Tho case of the inamdars
respond1mts was that in ei!lht of the suits the land
was a Krtrn<un service inam and in seven suits the
hnd w11s a Sarvad·umbala in am. These inams lands were
settlement inams and enfranchised by the Government on the basis that they were excluder! from the
assets of the Mmindari at the time of the perma·
. neut settlement and separate title deeds were subsJqu~ntly issue•I to the inamdars. According to
t4e ina~dars tqese ina~ l!~qdd >y"er'il
qot "e~t!\t\l~"
1962
Go1idumogula T4tayy•
••
Penumatclia Ananda
Vi1a a Venkala•
rama Timma.
J a1:apathiraJu
Das J,
1962
Gon·lumoyulo
Tal•.Y.Ja
v.
Pt1UJ111at,M An.,,Ja
Vij;i;·s Vtnk.Jlaroma Timma
J •1npath~aju
/)as J.
326 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
within the meaning of s. 3 (2) of the }fadras Estates
Lands Act, 190~ (Madras Act I of 1908 ), and the
inamdars were entitled to both Jfdvaram and
Kudivaram therein ; the respondl'nts leai;ed out
these lands to the appellants for a fixed period
under an express contract with the appellants, who
were the lPssees concorned, thn,t they would quit
and deliver possession at tho end of their lease
periods; the appellants, however, did not vacate
the lands, but continued to be in possession. Twelve
acres and 52 cents of the suit lands wero lfornam
service inam and the rest Sarvadnmbala inam.
The appellants contPnded inlff alia that. the
suit lands formed part of the llfolcha.sa of village
Goteru and were included in the asPets of the 7..amindari at thC' time of pC'rmanent settlcmt>nt. that thP
inams were part of an estate and the appellant had
acquired rights of occupancy in the lands in suit
under the provisions of the :lfadras Estates Land
Act. They also raised certain other picas with which
we are not now concerned. The main defence of
the appellant.~ w:is that they had got pC>rmanent
occupancy rights in the suit lands and therefore,
they were not liable to be ejected and the Civil Court
had no jurisdiction to try the
suit.~.
The learned District :lfunsif of Tanuku who
tried tho suits in the firRt inst:ince dealt with them
in three batches. He held in three separate judgments that the suit lands wero pre-sdtlement minor
inams, that they wcro not included in the assets
of' the zamindari at the time of tho permanent
settlement and that thev were not "estates" within
tho meaning of the pro~i"ions of th~. Madras Estates
Land Act.
The learned :IIunsif also held that as
there was a clear undertaking to vacate the lands
at the expiry of the period of the leases, no notico
to quit was necessary. In the result ho decreed
the suits.
The tenants, appellants
herein, then
preforred j'lfteen appC>als against the judgments ~nq
-
-
...
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COCJR L' REPORTS
321
decrees of the learned Munsif. These appeals were
heard together by the learned Subordinat~ Judge
of Eluru. By a common judgment delivered on
March 29, 1948, the learned Subordinate Judge
agreed with the learned Munsif in respect of all
the findings and dismissed the appeals. Then; there
were second appeals to the High Court of Judicature at Madras. In these second appeals only
two points were urged on behalf of the appellants. The first point was that the finding of
the courts below that the suit lands were excluded
from the assets of the zamindari was vitiated by
reason of the burden of proof being wrongly placed
on the appellants. The second point was that the
inamdars having concerned in the plaints that the
tenants were holding over after the expiry of their
leases, the inamdars were not entitled to recover
possession without issuing notices to quit as required by law. With regard to the first point of the
High Court pointed out that though it was settled
law that the burden wa5 upon the landlord to ~ake
out his right to evict a tenant from the holding,
Sarvadumbala inams or inams granted for public
services of a pre-settlement period were ordinarily
excluded from the assets the of zamindari at the time
of the permanent settlement except in some specific cases, where such lands were as an exception
included in the assets of the zamindari, the exceptions being found in the four western Palayams
of the zamindaries of Venkatagiri, Karvetnagar,
Kalahasti, and Sydapur and the !J!okhasa in Masuli pa tam district. Therefore, with regard to pm-settlement Sarvadambala irrnms or public service inams
the peroon who alleged that they were included
in assets of the zamindari had to prove that they
were so included.
The High Court then observed
that the courts below did not base their judgments
on onus of proof, but came to. their conclusions on
a consideration of the evidence :given in the suits ;
~4erefore where tqe entire eyiqence was ~one into,
1962
Goniumogula
Tatayya
••
Penum·1tcha Ananda
Vijaya Venkai4·
rama
ri.mma
Jagapathiraju
Das J.
1962
G"ndumogula
Totayya
Vo
l'·r.u1T11Jfc1ra A11QJ1t/t1
Vi1._,. Vtn-"l12·
,.,,,. 7 inrma
J agopalhiraJU
nos J,
328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1962] SUPP.
the question of burden of proof was immaterial. The
High Court pointed out that the question whether
tho predecessors of tbe respondents herein were
grnnted both tho '1'nram-s or Jfelmram only was not
rnised before it and the contentions of the parties
in the High Court centred round tho only question
whether the suit la.nd:i . were pre-settlement inams
excluded from the assets of the zamindari or whether they were included in those assets.
The High
Court pointed out that this waq reall.v a question of
fact a.nd in second appeal the High Coun could not
intcrfe.re with a finding of fact un-less there were permissible grounds for such interference. The High
Court held that there were no such permissible
grounds. However, the High Court refernd again to
the documentary evidence given in the casP, namely,
Ex. A-1, extract from the register of village service
inams in the unonfranchisct.l :11okhasa village of
Gotern, Ex. A-2, the till" deed granted t.o the
predecessors-in-interest of the inamt.lars wherein it
was specifically recitet.l that the inams were held
for service, Ex. A-5, a
settlement datet.l December 13, 1942, Ex. A-7, a rel-(ister of service inanrn
of Goteru dated Dc()embnr i":l, 194!1, Ex. A-f), public
copy
of
the
village
account
of
Goteru,
Ex. B-1, register of ina.rns
of village
Goteru
preparet.l
in
1859,
Ex.
A-2i,
Rhubond
accounts reln,ting to Goteru, Komarnvarnm and
Summpudi Mokhasas, and Ex. A-28 Zam•1bandi Pys-
. ala Chitta, etc., and came to the conclusion that the
inarns in question, both Karw1m service inams and
the Sarvadumbala inam~. were p<lr-scttlcmcnt. inams
and the documents show et.I that t.hey were not. taken
into consideration in determining the assets of the
z~minda.ri. Un the second quc'stion of not.ice, thA
High Court came to the conclusion that the appellants herein were not tenants. holding over but. were
perso1rn who continued. to be in possession without
~qe coqsent of tlie inaQlt.lars u.ftcr tbe tcnμiqu.t\on
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
329
of the tenancy; that being the position, no notice
was
necessary and the suits for eviction were
maintainable.
In the appeals before us learned Advocate
for the appellants bas not canvassed the question
of notice. He has canvassed two points only: firstly.
he hao argued somewhat faintly that the finding of
the courts below that the service inams were presettlement inams and were excluded from the assets
of the zamindari was riot a correct finding secondly,
he has argued that by reason of the amendments
made ins. 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act
in 1936 and 1945, these minor inams constituted an
estate within the meaning of the aforesaid provisions
and under s. 6 uf the said Act, the appellants had
acquired a permanent right of occupancy in their
holdings; therefore, they were not liable to be
ejected and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to
deal with the suits.
As to the first point urged before us, it is
sufficient to state that it relates to a question of
fact on which there is a concurrent finding by the
conrts below and the appellants have not been able
to satisfy us that there are any special reasons, such
as, a manifest error of law in arriving at the finding,
or a disregard of the judicial process or of principles
of fair heal'ing etc., which would justify us in going
behind such a concurrent finding. We must, there-
•
fore, proceed on the footing that the inams in
question were pre·settlement inams, eight of them
.K arnam service inams and seven others Sarvadumbal,a inams.
This brings us to the second point urged before
us. T1iat point does not appear to have been agitated in the High Court. But as it relates to tho interpretation of s. 3(2)(d), and Explanation(!) appended
thereto,
of the Madras Estates Land
Act,
we have allowed .learned Advocate for the apellants
~'? ar9ue the ~oiut before us. Section 3(2)(d) aud
J962
Gondumogula
Taioyya
v.
Penumatcha Ancvula
Vi;aja Venkota:..
ra·ma Timma
J agapalhira;u
DasJ.
1962
Gondumogula
Ta1apa
v,
P111W11atcha An.anda
Viia.10 V dalarama Timrnri
JOl}apalhiraju
J)aJ .1,
33() SGPREME COURT REPORTS (19G2J SUPP.
Explanation (I) appended thereto, is in these
terms:
"il. In this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the 8ubject or contoxt-
............ " ......................................... .
12) "Estate" means-
.. -···· .......................................... .
(d) any inam village of which the
grant has been made, confirmed or recognized
h~· the Grwernment, notwithstanding that
subsequent to the grant, the village has been
partitioned among
the grantees or
tho
succc~sors in title oft.he grantee or grantees.
Explanation (I )-Where a. grant as an
inam is expreAiled to bo of a named villag",
the area which forms tho subject-mattor of the
grant shall ho <foemcd to ho
an
estate
not l>ithstanding that it did not includo certain
lands in the village of th11t nam<l which have
already been granted on service or other teuure
or been reserved for communal purposes.
"
. . .............................................. .
It is worthy of note hero that \\'hen the ;\fadras
F>tatc~ Lam·! Act was enacted for the first time iu
1 !JOS s. :!( 2)( cl) was as followH:
"Any village <if which the Janel revenue
alone has been granted in inam to a person
not owning the kurlivararn thereof, provided
that the grnnt. has been made, confirmed or
rccogniz<'d by the British Government or any
separ~t<"<l part of such village."
.
Owing to a varidy of rl'aAons which it is not
n"cessarv tn Htate her<' there was an arm·ndmPnt
.
,
uy which cl. (d) as it originally stood was rornoved
•
•
•
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
331
and a fresh clause substituted by s. 2 (I) of the
Madras Estates Land (Third Amendment) Act, 1936
(Madras Act XVIII of 1936). The old Explanations
(1) and (2) were renumbered as Explanations (2)
and (3) respectively iind a new Explanation was
inserted as Explanation (I) bys. 2(1) of the Madras
Estates Land (Amendment) Act, 1945 (Madras Act
II of 1945).
The reasons why the amendments
became necessary have been explained in the Full
Bench deci;iion of the Madras High Court in
Mantravadi Bhav1inareyana v. Merugu Venkatadu(').
In Narayanaswami Nayudu v. Subramanyam(') it was
observed by the Madras High Court that the
existence of service inam was very common in
villages itnd that where there was a subsequent
grant of the village, to hold that such grant was not
an estate as defined in s. 3(2)(d) by reason of the
existence of minor inams would result in the exclusion of agraharams,
shrotriyams and
mokhasa
villages from the operation of the Act and that
·could not have beep the intention of the Legislature. In that decision Srinivasa Ayyangar,
J.,
observed:
"The definition in sub-section 3, clause ( d)
was obviously intended to exclude from the
definition of 'Estate' what are known as minor
inam '• namely, particular extents of land in
a particular village as contrasted with the
grant of the whole village by its boundaries.
The latter a.re known as 'whole inam villages'.
The existence of 'minor inams' in whole inam
villages is very common and if these inam
villagc•il do not come within the definition of
'Estate' almost all the agrabaram, shrotriyam
and mokhasa villages will be excluded. This
certainly cannot have been the intention of
the Legislature."
(I) I. L. R. [1954] Madras 11~.
(2) (1915) I. L. R. 39 Madras 683,
1962
Gondumogula
Tatay~va
v.
Ptnumatcha Anc.nda
Vijo,)'a
Venka~a
rama Timma
Jagopothira.1u
DasJ.
196Z
0"""""°9ula
T•ta.va
v.
P1numakha Jfno11d4
YijaJla V1niatYraao ·rirnm11
Jo1apa14iraju
Da1 J.
332 SUPRE3IE COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
This interpretation of s.
3( 2)( d) was accepted
without question until the decision in Ademma v.
Satyadhyana Thirtha Swamiraru (1)
where for the
first time a different note was struck. It was held
therein that where portions of tho estate had
previously
been grantotJ as
minor inams, a
subsequent grant of the rest of the village was not
of an estate as it was not uf the whole village. Tho
Legislature thereupon in torvened and enacted
Ex:planation ( l) with the object of restoring the
view of the law which hiul been held before tho
decision
in
Ademma
v.
Satyadhyana
'l'hirtlta
Swmnfr<ll"ll( 1). The crucial test to find out whether
the subject mattor of a grant falls within the
definition of an estate under s. 3(2) (ti) of tho Aot
is whether at the time of the grant the subjectmatter w:is a wholo village or only a part of a
village. If !Lt the time of the grant it was only o.
part of a villa"e, then the amending Act makes no
differencn to this and sueh a part would not be an
estate within the meaning of the term. But if tho
grant was of the whole village n.ncl a named one.
then it would he an estate.
Leo.med Advocate for
the appellants has referred us to thn Jlokhasn sanad of
December 8, 1802. That san~d gives a. list ofvillagos
which Goteru is one. The argument of learned
Advocate for tho appellants is tho.t the inam lands
being within vi ll:L"e Goteru, thev n.lso a.re "c:itates"
within the mcanlng of s. 3(2J{d) read with Explanation (I). It appears tu us that thi" argument is
cleo.rly erroneous. Them is no doubt that tho
~fokhasa grant is a.n estate within the rne:min)! of
the s. 3 (2) of the :IIadra.s Estates Land Ad, and
that is
no:.
disputed beforn us.
Th:Lt does
not however,
moan
that
the minor inams
would
:Ll,;u
constitut.o an t•stale
within
the
meaning of ~. :1 (~) (d). As was pointed out in
1'f antravadi !3lumMwmyrina v. 11! tr nyu. Venbil<1dn('),
(I) [1913," M. L.J. 239.
(l) I. L. R. _1951] M•dras 110.
:i s.c.R. sUPRErit:E cottR± REPoRfs
3:1:{
the crucial test is whether at the· time of the grant
the subject-matter was a whole village or only part
of a village. In District Board, Tanjore v: M. J(. Noor
Mohamed Rowther (1) this Court observed that "Any
ioam village" in s. 3(2}(d) meant a whole village
granted in inam and not anything less t~an a village
however big a part it might be of that village. In
other words the grant must either comprise the
whole area of a village or must be so expressed as
is tantamount to the grant of a named village as a
whole, even though it does not comprise the whole
of the village area, and the latter case, in order to
come within the scope of the defini~ion it must fulfil
the conditions; (a) the words of the grant should
exprPssly (and not by implication) make it a grant
of a particular village as such by name and not a
grant of a defined specific area only; and (b) that
the area excluded had already been granted for
service or other tenure; or (c) that it had been reserved for communal purposes. The minor
inams
under consideration in these suits were pre-settlement inams and the finding which cannot now be
cballenged is that they were excluded from the
assets of the zamindari at the time of the permanent settlement in 1802, though the Mokhasas were
not so excluded. That being the position, the minor
inams were not grants of whole villages and were
not estates within the meaning of s. 3(2)(d) of the
Madras Estates Land Act. Therefore, the appellants
cannot claim the benefit of s. 6 of the said Act •.
Learned Advocate for the appellants also
addressed us at some length on the beneficent
nature of the provisions of the Madras Estates Land
Act an([ submitted that the appellants ·herein
should not be deprived of the benefits of that Act.
But the appellants must satisfy us first that they.
come within the protection or benefits of the Act.
If the lands which they held were not an "estate"
\!) A. I. R. [1953] S.C. 446.
l1ondum11gula
Tatq,Ja
••
· Penumatcha Ananda
V ijaya Vmkata~
rama Timma
J agapathiraju
DasJ.
1962
Gond1.mog11la
101a.J)'O
v.
/'enumatcha A nondd
Vijaya Vtnkatc·
roma
Iimma
Jagepat!.fraju
!~:!4
SUPREME COCR'f REPOitTS [l!lli2) SUPP.
within the meaning- of the Act, then there can be
no qncsti.or_i of giving them the benefit of the Act.
In.our op1mon, there is no substan~e in the second
pomt urged on belrnlf of the 1tppcllants.
.
In the r«sult the appeals fail and are clismi,~cd
mth cost; one hearing foe.
DosJ.
• /!Jfi2
Appwl'J dismissal.
t)HA.l\IBHOO
v.
STA
1l'J<; OF lJ'f'I'AR PRADl•~SH
( ,J. L. K.Al'IJR, !(. C. DAS GUP'!'A and RAGIIUBAR
DAYAL, J,J.)
(}1i11iinal Trial--Jfurd.er-- ·F'istol and cartridges recovered
frvni ucr-usr:d--··f'ailur"-
to send' to
balli.~tic F.xperl-lf entails
rPjr.ction of e.ye uJif-nes,w·.~- -1lpprt;ciation of ei.:idencc.
'I'he appellant
~\'idt su1nc others robbed Duila and t\VO
others and d11r1rig the robber)' the appellant !hot at and killed
Dull.a. \vi1h a pist ,l,
Afier a chase the appellant was appre·
hrnticd and the pistol a11d .some cartridges were recovered
from bun. 1'he pistol and cartridges , .. ·ere
not sent for·
examination to the ballistic. expert.
:\ number of eye "·it·
nc.s~es y.·cre
produced at the trial.
1"hc Sessions Judge ac·
quitted the appellant but 011 appeal the lligh Cou1 t convicted
him un<lcr ss. 302 and 1Y4 Indian Penal Code and sentenced
hin1 to death. The appellant contended that the circum·
stances of the case showed that the eye \Vitnesses could not
be relied upon and that the failure to get the pistol and
cartridges examined by a ballistic expert was a good ground
for rejecting the e .. ·idenr.c of the eye \•;itnesses.
Jleld, that though the prosecution would have done
well to send the pistol and cartridges to the ballistic expert
for his opinion, the omission to do so clid not furnish any
reason to doubt or reject the e\·idence of the eye witnesses.
'!"here
.... ·:1.s no reason to think that the injuries of \Vhich
Oulla died could not have been c:au;.ed by the pistol, on the
cvntrarv the
nature of the
injuries
\\'a5 \\·holly consistent
\vlth the prosecution story that a pistol \\'as used.
'