9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (12) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge. Subsequently, the Settlement Officer of Srikakulam suo motu made an enquiry as to whether this village was an "estate" or not within the contemplation of s. 9(2) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short, called Abolition Act) and by an order, dated September 2, 1950, held that it was not an 'inam estate' within the meaning of s. 2(7) of the Abolition Act. The Settlement Officer further recorded a finding that village Kadakalla became an estate by virtue of the Madras Estates Land (3rd Amendment) Act, 1936. Against that order of the Settlement Officer, the appellants herein carried an appeal to the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Vizianagaram. The 'Tribunal by its order, dated September 16, 1952 dismissed the appeal in limine, with the observation that the decision of the Settlement Officer being in their favour the appellants had no right of appeal, The appellants then instituted O.S. 47 of 1953 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam against the State Government for a declaration that Kadakalla village was not an 'estate' under s. 3 (2) (d) of 1908 Act, and consequently,_the Rent Reduction Act and the Abolition Act were not app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Estates Land Act, as amended upto date". As a result of this compromise, it was held that the decision of Issues 1, 6 and 8 would follow the final decision in O.S. 47 of 1953. The remaining Issues were tried and decided on merits. On March 28, 1958, the trial court keeping in view the joint memo filed by the parties and its findings on the other Issues, passed a decree in these terms : "In case it is ultimately decided by the High Court or the Supreme Court, as the case may be, in the appeal or revision arising out of O.S. No. 47 of 1953 on the file of this Court that the suit village Kadakalla is not an estate within the meaning of s. 3 (2) (d) of the Estates Land Act, the defendants to pay to the plaintiffs the sum of Rs. 3,000/- with in- terest at 5-1/2 per cent per annum from 26-3- 1958 with interest thereon and for costs, and that otherwise suit should stand dismissed with costs and that the decree should take effect from the date of the final decision of O.S. No. 47 of 1953 referred to above." The appeal (A.S. 668 of 1954) arising out of O.S. 47 of 1953 was decided by the High Court on February 12, 1959 whereby the decree of the, trial court declaring that village Kadakall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order of the Settlement Officer had acquired 'statutory validity'; and since the appellants did not file an appeal within two months from the commencement of the Amendment Act, the decision of the Settlement Officer became final and binding on all the parties including the appellants. In spite of opposition by the, appellants, the High Court by its order, dated August 23, 1956, allowed this additional evidence and the setting up of the new plea. The appeal and the cross-objections were heard together in August. 1966. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the suit itself was incompetent as the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide whether the suit village is an estate, or not and, therefore, any decision given by the High Court in appeal (A.S. 668 of 1954) would not bind the parties and the decree in the present suit (O.S. 101 of 1954) on the, basis of the judgment and decree in A.S. 668 of 1954. would be without jurisdiction rendering it null and void, .that the Settlement Officer was the competent authority to decide the tenure of the village and his decision had become final in view of the introduction of Section 9A by Act 20 of 1960. The preliminary object ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tee or grantees."' Section 3(2)(d) was further amended by Madras Estates Land Amendment Act II of 1945 with retrospective effect from the date on which the Third Amendment Act 18 of 1936 came into force. It inserted (among others) Explanation 1, to this clause, which reads "Where a grant as an inam is expressed to be of a named village. the area which forms 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 would have already been granted on service or other tenure or been reserved for communal purposes." Explanation I makes it clear that (apart from being made, confirmed, or recognised by the Government), an inam grant in order to come within the purview of "estate" under s. 3(2) (d) has to be a grant expressly made of a named village or whole Village, and not only of a part of the village or of some defined area in a village. However, it remains and is 'deemed to be a grant of a whole village notwithstanding the exclusion of certain lands already granted on service ,or other tenure or reserved for communal purposes; nor does it cease to be a grant of an entire village merely because ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etion allow, appeal to the Tribunal. (b) Where any such appeal is preferred, the Tribunal shall cause to. be Publisher in the village in the prescribed manner a notice requiring all persons who have applied to the Settlement Officer under sub-section (1) or filed before him before it, and after giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, give its decision. (c) The decision of the Tribunal under this sub-section shall be final and not be liable to be questioned in any court of law. (5) No decision of the Settlement Officer under sub-section (3) or of the Tribunal under sub-section (4) shall be invalid by reason of any defect in the form of the notice referred to in sub-section (2) or sub-section (4) as the case may be, or the manner of its publication. (6) Every decision of the Tribunal and subject to such decision, every decision of the Settlement Officer under this section shall be binding on all persons claiming an interest in any law in the village. notwithstanding that any such person has not preferred any application or filed any statement or adduced any evidence or appeared or participated in the proceedings before the Settlement Officer or the Tribunal as the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s.9(4) of the Abolition Act, after the words where such appeal is preferred", the words "by an aggrieved person, the Tribunal shall give notice to the Government and in the case of all appeals whether by the ;Government or by an aggrieved person" were inserted. The second Amending Act was Andhra Pradesh Act 18 of 1957, section 2 of which substituted the following section for sub-section (3) of s. 1 of the Abolition Act 665 "It applies to all estates as defined in section 3, clause (2), of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, (Madras Act 1 of 1908)." This Act further substituted the following clause for clause (7) of s.2 of the principal Act: "In an estate" means an estate within the meaning of section 3, clause (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 (Madras Act 1 of 1908)". In s.9 of the principal Act, after the words "Inam village" or "the village", wherever they occurred the words "or hamlet or khandriga granted as inam" were inserted. It will be seen that Act 18 of 1957, made the Abolition Act applicable even to villages that became estates under the 1936 Amendment of the 1908 Act. For the purpose of the Abolition Act that distinction between pre-1936 and post- 1936 ina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndholder or other person aggrieved had no. occasion to appeal to the Tribunal against the decision and finding of the Settlement Officer; and all such notifications issued and actions taken in pursuance thereof during the period aforesaid shall be deemed always to have been validly issued and taken in accordance with law. (2) No suit or other proceeding challenging the validity of any such notification or action or for any relief on the ground that such notification or action was not validly issued or taken shall be maintained or conti- nued in any court, and no court shall enforce any decree or other holding any such notification or action to be invalid or grant any relief to any person." The first question that falls for decision is : To what extent and in what circumstances the Civil Court is competent in a suit to go into the question whether a particular village is an "estate"? By virtue of s. 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Civil Courts 'have jurisdiction to decide all suits of a civil nature excepting those of which their cognizance,, is either expressly or impliedly barred. The exclusion of the civil court's jurisdiction, therefore, is not to be readily assumed unl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs initiated before the Settlement Officer under s. 9 question the character of the property as not falling within the description of an "inam village", he has of necessity to decide the Issue, for until he holds that this condition is satisfied he cannot enter on the further enquiry which is the one which by s. 9(1) of the Act he is directed to conduct. On the terms of s. 9 (1), the property in question being an "inam village" is assumed as a fact on the existence of which the competency of the Settlement Officer to determine the matter within his jurisdiction rests and as there are no words in the statute empowering him to decide finally the former be cannot confer jurisdiction on himself by a wrong decision on this preliminary condition to his jurisdiction. Any determination by him of this question, therefore, is (subject to the result of an appeal to the Tribunal) binding on the parties only for the purposes of the proceedings under the Act, but no further. The correctness of that finding may be questioned in any subsequent legal proceeding in the ordinary courts of the land where the question might arise for decision." Now let us approach the problem in hand in the light of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e limits to investigate and determine further something which was unnecessary or merely incidental or remotely related to issue (2), then such incidental or unnecessary determination, could be questioned in the civil court. Again, any finding recorded by the Settlement Officer regarding the property in question being an 'inam village' or not, is not final or conclusive it being a finding of a jurisdictional fact, only, the preexistence of which is a sine qua non to the exercise of his exclusive jurisdiction by the Settlement Officer. Investigation as to the existence or otherwise of this preliminary fact is done by the Settlement Officer to ascertain whether or not he has jurisdiction to determine that the particular property is an 'inam estate'. If upon such investigation, he finds that the property is 'an 'inam village', the foundation for the exercise of his exclusive jurisdiction is laid, and he can then, and then only, embark upon the enquiry envisaged by the statute. If such investigation reveals that the property is not an 'inam village', the con- dition precedent to the exercise of such jurisdiction by him, would be lacking. The Legislature must have visualised that under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suit. The High Court confirmed that decision, holding that when the grant was made (in 1774), it was neither of the whole village nor of a named village within the meaning of Explanation 1 to s.3 (2) (d) of the 1908 Act. In Original Suit 101 of 1954, also, the relief of rent or damages is conditional and dependent upon and linked up (by an agreement between the parties) with the determination of the main question involved in the former suit. We have, therefore, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the common question in both these suits regarding Kadakalla being an estate or not, on the ground that it was not an inam village, was within the competence of the civil court. Further point to be considered is : whether the jurisdiction of the civil courts to proceed with and determine the aforesaid suits 'was, in any way, affected by the enactment of Amending Acts 17 and 18 of 1957. For reasons that follow, the answer to this question, in our opinion, must be in the negative. It is well settled that ordinarily, when the substantive law is altered during the pendency of an action, rights of the parties are decided according to law, as it existed when the action was begun unl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed, or cause abatement of pending actions. These Amending Acts, 'therefore, can be construed as having a prospective operation only. They cannot be interpreted as taking away the rights of the litigants in Suits O.S. 47 of 1953 and O.S. 101 of 1954 (which were at the commencement of these Amendments pending at the appellate or original stage) to have their respective claims determined in, accordance with the law in force at the time of the institution of the actions. Before we come to the Amending Act 20 of 1960, it is necessary to examine whether the decrees in O.S. 47 of 1953 and O.S. 101 of 1954 had attained finality. And, if so, when and to what extent ? So far as the decree of the High Court (in A.S. 668 of 1954 arising out of O.S. 47 of 1953) is concerned, there is no dispute that it had become final and conclusive between the parti es to that action, namely, the State Government and the present appellants on February 12, 1954. Learned Counsel are, however, not agreed as to whether the decree, dated March 28, 1958, passed by the civil court in Suit No. 101 of 1954 had also assumed such a character. Mr. Natesan. vehemently contended that this decree in so far as it, pursuant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a statute". Perhaps, it was assumed that in the Memo of Appeal, every bit of the decree was being challenged by the appellants. We think, with all respect, that such an assumption was contrary to the well established principle that in construing a pleading or a like petition, in this ,country, the court should not look merely to its form, or pick out from it isolated words or sentences; it must read the petition as a whole, gather the real intention of the party and reach at the substance of the matter. Thus construed, the Memo of Appeal in this, case could not be said to contain a challenge to that part of the decree which was in terms of the compromise agreement between the parties. Order 23, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, not only permits a partial compromise and adjustment of a suit by a lawful agreement, but further gives a mandate to the court to record it and pass a decree, in terms of such compromise or adjustment in so far as it relates to the suit. If the compromise agreement was lawful-and, as we shall presently discuss, it was so-the decree to the extent it was a consent decree, was not appealable, because of the express bar in s. 96,(3) of the Code. Next point is, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we can derive support from the ratio of this Court's decision in Raja Sri Sailendra Narayan Bhanja Deo v. State of Orissa [1956] S.C.R. 72. In that case, there was a compromise decree between the predecessors-in-title of the appellant therein on the one hand, and the Secretary of State on the other, that Kanika Raj was an 'estate' as defined by Orissa Estates Abolition Act of 1951. This Court held that the appellant was estopped by the compromise decree from denying that the Raj was not such an 'estate'. In the light of the above discussion, we would hold that part of the decree in Suit No. 101 of 1954 which was in terms of the compromise agreement had become, final between the parties, and, the appeal from that decree could not be said to be a continuation of that part of the claim which had been settled by agreement. The combined effect of the two integrated decrees in Suit No. 47 and Suit No. 101, in so far as they, declared that Kadakalla, not being an. 'inam village, was not an estate under s. 3(2)(d) of the 1908 Act, was to completely vacate and render non-est the decision dated September 2, 1950 of the Settlement Officer. Against the above background, we have to consider whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovisions of the Amending Act 20 of 1960. In this Act, also no back date for its commencement has been mentioned. It will, therefore, be deemed to have commenced on June 23, 1960, which is the date on which it was published in the Govt. Gazette. It does not say (excepting in s. 12 inserted by it which obviously does not apply to the facts of this case) that the amendment would have effect and would be deemed always to have had effect from the inception of the parent Act, nor does it use any equivalent expressions or similar words which are usually found in Amending Acts intended to have retrospective operation without any limit.' Section 9-A inserted by this Amending Act in the parent Act, does not begin with any non-obstante cause, whatever having reference to decrees or orders of civil courts. In terms, it concern,s itself only with a certain category of decisions given before the commencement of Act 18 of 1957 by the Settlement Officer/Tribunal, under s. 9 of the Abolition Act. Such decisions are those which were based on the finding that a particular Inam village had become estateby virtue of the. Madras Estates Land (Third Amendment) Act, 1936. The Order, dated September 2, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not been totally vacated or rendered non- est by a decree of a competent court. The decision dated September 2, 1950 of the Settlement Officer in the instant case, was not such a decision. It had ceased to exist as 'a result of the inter-linked decree in O.S. 47 of 1953 and O.S. 101 of 1954, passed before the enactment of this Amending Act. The Amending Act of 1960, therefore, does not in any way, affect the finality or the binding effect. of those decrees. Quite, a number of authorities were cited by the learned Counsel on both sides, but it is not necessary to notice all of them because in lost of them the facts were materially different. Only one of those cases in which the interpretation of ss. 9-A and 64-A was involved reserves to be noticed. It is reported in Yeliseth Satyanarayana v. Aditha agannadharab and ors. [1966] I.L.R. A.P. 729. The writ petitioners in that case had challenged the order of the Estates Abolition Tribunal which had held (1) that the previous order of the Civil Court holding the suit lands to be an estate, by virtue of the Amending Act XVIII of 1936 to the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, was not res judicata under s. 64-A of the Abolition Act and (2) t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uling does not, advance the case of the respondents. For all the foregoing reasons, we allow this appeal, reverse the judgment of the High Court and send the case back to it for decision on the remaining issues in accordance with law. We make no orders as to the costs of this Court. KRISHNA IYER, J.-The judgment just delivered has my concurrence. But a certain juristic thought expressed therein and consecrated in an authoritative passage which has fallen from Bowen, L.J., in Reid v. Reid [1886] 31 Ch.D.402;408 persuades me to break my silence not so much in dissent but in explanatory divagation. The proposition there expressed and here followed relates to the presumption against vested rights being affected by subsequent legislation. Certainly this legal creed of Anglo-Indian vintage has the support of learned pronouncements, English and Indian. But when we apply it in all its sternness and sweep, we err. Precedents should not be petrified nor judicial dicta divorced from the socioeconomic mores of the age. Judges are not prophets and only interpret laws in the light of the contemporary ethos. To regard them otherwise is unscientific. My thesis is that while applying the policy of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
