AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mack, J.—This second appeal and these batches of civil revision petitions raise the same point for determination, namely, whether
Medupalli Agraharam is an estate within the meaning of Section 3 (2), Estates Land Act. It has now two landlords who originally belonged to the
same family, Venkatarangacharyulu and Ramanujacharyulu. S. A. No. 2235 of 1946 arises out of a suit for rent filed by the latter claiming nearly
Rs. 585 as rent from three tenants. The District Munsif holding that Medupalli Agraharam was not an estate decreed the suit. The civil revision
petitions arise out of batches of suits for ejectment by these landlords in which on a finding that this agraharam was an estate and that the tenants
had occupancy rights, the plaints were returned for presentation to the Revenue Court. The learned Subordinate Judge of Ellore heard all the
resulting appeals along with other batches of appeals arising out of two other villages, Pentapadu Agraharam and Devaracheruvu Kandrika in a
common judgment in which he held that these were all estates u/s 3 (2) of the Act. He accordingly dismissed all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals as
regards return of the plaints for representation to the Revenue Court and allowed Appeal No. 246 of 1944 in which the District Munsif decreed
the suit for rent out of which second appeal No. 2235 of 1946 arises.
The learned Subordinate Judge saw no grounds for differentiating between these three Agraharams and treated them all on the same footing on
the basis of Explanation 1 to Section 3-(2). As amended by Madras Act II [2] of 1945, it reads as follows :
Where a grant as an inam is expressed of a named village, the area which forma the subject-matter 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 service or other tenure or been
reserved for communal purposes.
There has been a complication as regards this omnibus finding by the learned Subordinate Judge as the tenants from these three Agraharams
have filed separate revision petitions as regards which separate treatment was necessitated. In a batch of civil revision petitions (NOS. 1432 to
1437 of 1946) arising out of this common judgment filed by the landlords of Pantepadu Agraharam and Devaracheruvu Kandrika, I held that they
were not estates within the meaning of Section 3 (2) (d) of the Act, holding myself bound by an unreported Bench decision by Patanjali Sastri and
Bell JJ., in Venkatarangacharyulu v. Mukku Ganganna, A. A. O. No. 584 of 1944 and A. A. O. No. 373 of 1945 in which Pentapadu Agraharam
was held to be not an estate even within the meaning of Explanation 1 as amended by Act II [2] of 1945. In that litigation the original grant of
Pentapadu Agraharam was produced describing the subject-matter as ""Patha Pentapad hamlet of Pentapad village."" As regards Devaracheruvu
Kandrika, it was an inam in Pentapadu itself though not included in two Pentapadu Agraharams, which were confirmed under two title deeds. The
word ""Kandrika"" itself means part of a village. In that batch of revision petitions the tenants of those two Agraharams made no appearance,
doubtless in view of the tenure of Pentapad Agraharam having been conclusively determined by the unreported Bench decision to which I have
referred.
It is now contended that on the basis of that Bench decision, Medapalli Agraharam is similarly not an estate u/s 3 (2) (d) of the Act. The inam
register extract, however, shows the village described as Medapalli Agraharam consisting of 208 acres of land granted as inam for the personal
benefit of the holder. It also shows 10 acres of poromboke lands ""as included in the village site etc."" and other personal and service inams
comprising 44 acres. Prima facie, there is therefore nothing in the description in the inam fair register extract which would take this village out of the
definition of an ""estate"" under Explanation 1 in Act II [2] of 1945, it being clearly a named village. It is, however, contended that this same
Medapalli Agraharam has already been found by Panchapagesa Sastri J., in an unreported decision in Rangacharyulu v. Venkanna S. A. 2349 of
1945 to be not an estate. That decision has been placed before me. Panchapagesa Sastri J., there considered himself bound by Kadagalla
Venkanna Vs. Indukuri Lakshmipathi Raju and Others, , a Bench decision by Leach C. J. and Lakshmana Rao J., in which there was an extent of
90''45 acres described as ""waste"" ""including the site of the village"" out of which subsequently the zamindar granted 7''98 acres to an individual for
his personal benefit. The ratio decidendi of that decision was that the earlier grant was not therefore of the whole village and therefore the amending
Act of 1945 could not apply to make it an estate. Panchapagesa Sastri J., while applying this decision to Medapalle Agraharam gave leave to
appeal but subsequently the landlord and the tenant concerned compromised, and any attempt to make that an authoritative test case failed in its
objective.
Ordinarily the finding of Panchapagesa Sastri J., in that decision following a principle laid down in a Bench decision would be binding on me. In
a subsequent decision, however, Suryanarayana v. Venkatadu, 62 M. L. W. 279 : A. A. O. NOS.. 648 and 649 of 1946 : A. I. R. 1949 Mad.
770, Panchapagesa Sastri J., himself in a precisely similar village of Cheru Chintala held it to be an estate covered by the amended Explanation 1,
following another Bench decision in Molugu Lakshminarasimhacharyulu Vs. Marisetti Ratnam and Others, , also by Leach C. J. and Lakshmana
Rao J., in which it was clearly held that where the grant is of a named village the mere fact that the words ""exclusive of poromboke"" are used in the
grant will not take it out of the category of an estate within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act; and this is irrespective of whether some of
the lands in the village are already held under inam or service grants or whether there has been a reservation of part of the village for communal
purposes. It was specifically observed there that the words ""exclusive of poromboko"" should not be read as reserving the poromboke.
Panchapagesa Sastri J., holding himself bound by this Bench decision accordingly found Cheru Chintala to be an estate though 44 acres of land
was shown in that grant as ""poromboke."" In the case of Medupalli Agraharam only 10 acres is shown as poromboke lands ""including the village
site etc."" This description cannot possibly by itself take this Agraharam out of the definition of an estate under the amended explanation. The finding
of the learned Subordinate Judge, therefore, on an interpretation of the amended Explanation 1, by itself, was correct so far as Medupalli
Agraharam was concerned, that it is an estate within the meaning of Section 3(2) (d) of the Act.
It is interesting to note that in another case arising from this village even long prior to Explanation 1 as amended by Act II [2] of 1945,
Chandrasekhara Aiyar J., in Venkatarangachary v. Nagayya, C. R. P. 536 of 1940 upheld in revision the finding of the District Munsif that this
Agraharam was an estate. I can see no grounds therefore for acceding to the request of the learned advocate for the landlord either to refer the
status and tenure of Medupalli Agraharam for determination by a Bench nor in fact, can I even see any reasons which could justify granting any
leave for a further appeal. In the course of the argument I was asked to grant leave if I should find this Agraharam to be an estate following the
precedent of Panchapagesa Sastri J., in his first decision in Rangacharyulu v. Mukku Ganganna, A. A. O. No 584 of 1944 and A. A. O. No. 375
of 1945. He however has clearly revised that opinion in his subsequent decision in Suryanarayana v. Venkatadu, 62 M. L. W. 279 : A. I. R. 1949
Mad. 770. Nor can there be any doubt now as regards the correctness of the position that this Agraharam is an estate.
Second Appeal No. 2235 of 1946 is dismissed with costs and the plaint in the suit will be returned by the District Munsif for presentation to the
Revenue Court. The batches of civil revision petitions are also dismissed with costs and an advocate''s fee in each civil revision petition. Leave
refused.