Ismail, J.
1. The Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1948 (Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948) was enacted to provide for the repeal of the permanent settlement, the acquisition of the rights of landholders in permanently settled and certain other estates in the then province of Madras, and the introduction of the ryotwari settlement in such estates. Section 2(3) of this Act defined the expression inam estate as meaning a zamindari or an under tenure or an inam estate. Section 2 (7) defined the expression inam. estate as meaning flan estate within the meaning of Sec. 2, clause (2) (d) of the Estates Land Act, but not including an inam village which became an estate by virtue of the Madras Estates Land (111 Amendment) Act 1936.'. Section 9 of the Act provided for the Settlement Officer determining whether an inam. village is an inam estate or not.
2. Pursuant to the above statutory Provision, the Settlement Officer No. IV, Tiruchirapalli took proceedings for determining whether the relevant extent of lands in Maharaja Samudram village, Pattukottai taluk, Thanjavur district, constituted an inam, estate or not, as defined in Section 2 (7) of the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948. He came to the conclusion that it was not an inam estate. However, some of the persons claiming to be ryots of the lands in question preferred an appeal before the Estates Abolition Vibunal, Madurai in R. A. 357 of 1950. The Tribunal reversed the conclusion of the Settlement Officer and held that the lands constituted an inam estate within the meaning of Section 2 (7) of the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948. The petitioner herein filed W. P. 527 of 1951 on the file of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for quashing he order of the Tribunal anti on 19-1-1951 this court dismissed the writ petition holding that as the contenting of the petitioner was that the Inam in question did not constitute a whole village,But was less than villege, it was open to the petitioner to file a suit in a civil court for establishing that the concerned lands did not constitute an inam estate within the scope of Section 2(7) of the Tamil Nadu Act 26of 1948, as the jurisdiction of the settlement officer under section 9 of that Act was confined to the determination whether an inam village constituted an inam estate or not.
3. Therefore, the petitioner herein filed 0. S. 4 of 1954 on the Me of the District Court, West Thanjavur at Thanfavur, which was transferred to the court of the Subordinate Judge of Thanjavur and disposed of as 0. S. No. 78 of 1954. In that suit, the petitioner herein prayed for a declaration that the notification issued by the Govt. under the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948, treating the concerned land as an inam estate was ultra vires the powers of the State of Madras, void and had no legal effect; and for a permanent injunction against the State of Madras horn in any manner applying Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948 to the suit properties. The suit properties were described as-
'South of the temple of Sri Ranganathaswami in Maharajasamudram, village. North of the lower level land of Maharajasamudram lake and boundary of Palathali village; east of Kalugupulikkidu; and west of Erumaikaran pallam in Maharajasamudram village and Pattukottai fort covering an extent of 2942 acres and 82 cents nanja, punja and garden lands situate in Pattukottai taluk, Pattukottai sub-register in Thanjavur district,'
The case of the petitioner was that the grant did not constitute the entirety of the village, that the lands were granted by Raja Sri Pratap simha Raja Sahib in a Sursun Era 1140; that it was for the construction of an Agraharam for Brahmins in the land, that the lands mentioned in the grant were granted for the maintenance of agraharam and that it was clear from the records that what was granted by the Raja was less than a village and indeed only a portion of the village. That suit was decreed by the learned Subordinate Judge of than- javur an 6-1-1956.
4. The matter was taken up to this court in App. Nos. 223 and 292 of 1956, the former having been preferred by the State of Madras and the latter having been preferred by some of the persons claiming to be ryots of the lands in question. Both the appeals were dismissed by a Bench of this court on 12-11-19,59. The Bench held that the original grant produced before the court clearly established that the grant was not of the entire
village, though what was granted in inam was a large extent of land.
5. Subsequently the Tamil Nadu Legislature passed two Acts, the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1963, the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963, to provide for the acquisition of the rights of landholders in inam estates in the State of Tamil Nadu and the introduction of the ryotwari settlement in such estate, and the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryot ori) Act 1963, the Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963, to provide for the acquisition of the rights of Inamdars in minor inams in the State of Tamil Nadu and the introduction of ryotwari settlement in such inams.
6. Simultaneously, the Tamil Nadu Legislature enacted the Tamil Nadu Inams (Supplementary) Act 1963, the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1963 to provide the determination of questions whether shy non-ryotwari area in the State of Tamil Nadu is or is not an existing inam estate, a part village inam estate, a minor inam or a whole inam village in Pudukottai. Section 2 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1963 defines the expression 'existing inam estate as having the same meaning as in clause (4) of Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963. Section 2 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963 defines the expression existing inam estate as meaning an inam village which became an estate by virtue of the Madras Estates Land (111 Amendment) Act 1936 (Madras Act XVIII of 1936). It is worthwhile noting that the inam village referred to in this definition was outside the scope of the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948. Section 2 (c) of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1963, defines the expression 'minor inam' as having the same meaning as in clause (9) of Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Act'30 of 1963. Section2 (9)of the Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963 defines the expression 'minor inam' as meaning -
(i)any inam which is not - (a) an estate within the meaning of sub-clause (d) of clause (2) of Section 3 of the Madras Estates Land Act 1908 (Madras Act I of 1908) or (b) a new inam estate as defined in clause (9) of Section 2 of the Inam Estates Abolition Act; or (c) an estate,' within the meaning of sub-cl. (d) of clause (2) of. Section 3 of the Madras Estates Land Act 1908 (Madras Act I of 1908) as in force iv- the territories specified in the II Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh, and Madras (Alteration of Boundaries) Act 1959 - (Central Act 55 Of 1959).
(ii) LakhiraJ tenures of land;
(iii) any inam recognised and confirmed under Section 2 of the Pudukottai (Settlement of Inams) Act 1955 (Madras Act XXIII of 1955), but not including a new inam, estate as defined in clause (9) of Section 2 of the Inam Estates Abolition Act and situated in the merged territory of Pudukottai -
(iv) any inam in the transferred territory including any inam governed by the Services Inams Proclamation, dated 13-5-1893, or by Section 22 of the Madras(Transferred Territory) Incorporated and Unincorporated Devaswoms Act 1959 (Madras Act 30 of 1959) but not including lands held on any of the tenures specified below namely- (a) SreepanI daravaka, (b) Sreepadam, and (c) Thirrupuvaram;
Explanation- Any land granted on service tenure and governed by cl. (b) of sub-section (1) and sub-section M of Section 17 of the Abolition Act, or by clause (b) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Inam Estates Abolition Act shall be deemed to be a minor inam.'
7. The expression new inam estate was defined in Section 2 (9) of the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963 means a part village inam, estate or a Pudukottai inam estate.
8. Section 2 (e) of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1963 defines the expression 'part village inam estate' as having the same meaning as in clause (11) of Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948 Section 2 (11) of the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948, defines the expression 'part village inam estate' as meaning-
'A part of a village including a part of a village in the merged territory of Pudukottai the grant of which part has been made, confirmed or recognised by the Government, notwithstanding that subsequent to the grant, such part has been partitioned among the grantees or the successors-in-title of the grantee 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 of such part in terms of acreage or cawnies;
or of other local equivalent;
(b) Where a grant as an 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.
Explanation II - 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 differs persons.
9. Sec. 3 of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1963. provides for the appointment of Settlement Officers and Section 4 provides for the constitution of Tribunals. Section 5 (1) of the Act states-
'Notwithstanding anything contained in the Madras Estates Land Act 1906 (Madras Act I of 1908) or, in any other law for the time being in force, any person interested may, within three months-from the notified date as defined in clause (10) of Section 2 of the Inam Estates Abolition Act or from the date of Publication in the District Gazette, under sub-section (5) of Section I of the Minor Inams Abolition Act, of a copy of the notification under sub-sec (4) of the said Section 1, make an application to the Settlement Officer for a declaration that the non-ryotwari area in the application is or is not (1) an existing inam estate, or (ii) a part village inam estate; or (iii) a minor inams or (iv) a whole inam village in Pudukottai'.
There is a proviso to this sub-section, which A is unnecessary to refer to for the purpose of this case.
10. Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Act of 1963, provides for an appeal to the Tribunal against the order of the Settlement Officer. Section 7 provides that the Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Court subordinate to the High Court for the purpose of Section 115, C. P. C. It is unnecessary for the purpose of this Case to refer to the other provisions of this Act.
11. After these enactments were issued, the Government in G. O. Ms. Number 3174, Revenue, dated 17-12-1966, in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (4) of Section I of the TamilNadu Act 26 of 1963,apphed the Provisions of that, Act to the Inam estate, namely, Maharajasamudram, Pattukottai taluk. After the Government issued this notification, the petitioner herein invoked the jurisdiction of the Settlement Officer, under Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1963, putting forward the contention that the inam in question was only a minor inam and was not an inam estate under the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963. The description of the property given by the petitioner in that application filed before the Settlement Officer was
'Tanjore Dist. Pattukottai taluka, land known as Pattumalavarayan kalani as per the decree in O.S. 78 of 1954, aforesaid and measured as JR. S. I to 580 less R. S; 212 and 213, area 2473 acres 66 cents less land acquired by the Government already'.
12. The party respondents herein as well as the State of Tamilnadu filed objections before the Settlement Officer Tanjore, disputing the claim of the petitioner herein and putting forward the contention that the lands in question constituted an 'existing inam estate' within the scope of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1963, or at least a part village inam estate' and not a 'minor inam'. The Settlement Officer by his order dated 16-91968, rejected the case of the petitioner herein that the inam in question constituted a minor inam and that therefore the notification issued by the Government had to be cancelled. Against this order of the Settlement Officer, the petitioner herein preferred appeals before the Tribunal manned by the principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur. The Tribunal by its order dated 23-3-1972, remanded the matter for fresh enquiry by the Settlement Officer. After remand, the Settlement Officer passed a fresh order on 15-11-1974, holding that the non-ryotwari area going by the name of Maharajasamudram and covered by T. D. 444, constituted a part village inam estate attracting the provisions in Explanation I (a) and (2) to Section 2 (11) of the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963. Against this order of the Settlement Officer, the petitioner herein again preferred appeals to the Inam Abolition Tribunal, Tanjore, manned by the principal Subordinate Judge, Tanjore. The Tribunal by its order dated 4-9-1976, dismissed the appeals and confirmed the order of the Settlement Officer. It is to revise this order of the Tribunal that the present Civil revision petition has been filed under: Section 7 -of the Tamil, Nadu Act .31 of, 1963, read with Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.
13. As we have pointed out already the jurisdiction of the - Settlement Officer under Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1963, is to decide whether a non-ryotwari area is an existing inam estate or a part village inam estate or a minor inam or a whole inam, village in Pudukottai or none of these things. It is not the case of anybody that the property with which we are concerned is a whole inam village in Pudukottai. Consequently the Settlement Officer as well as the Tribunal had to enquire to find out whether the non-ryotwari area in question was an existing inam estate or a part village inam estate or a minor inam. As we have pointed out already, it was the case of the petitioner that it was a minor imam and it was the case of the State as well as the party respondents herein that it was an existing inam estate or at least a part village inam, estate. ,
14. From what we have stated above, the Settlement Officer and the Tribunal have held that it is not a minor inam and that it is a part village inam estate coming within the scope of the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963. We have now to consider the question, whether the Settlement Officer or the Tribunal had committed any error of jurisdiction in coming to the said conclusion.
15. The learned counsel for the petitioner very strenuously contended that the original grant in this case, a certified copy of which has been marked as Ex. A. 3, would clearly show that the non ryotwari area in question was only, a minor inam, Ad that the decision in 0. S. No. 78 of 1954, of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur and the decision of this court in AS 223 and 292 6f 1956 on the file of this court had established that the grant in question did not consist of a whole village; that for continuing an existing inam estate, it was necessary that the inam should be of a whole village and that it had already been held that the inam in the present case was not of the whole village, it could not be an existing inam estate. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the original grant would also establish that the grant in question was not a part village inam estate as defined in Section 2 (11) of the Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1963, because of the Explanation I (b) to the said section. We shall now consider the validity of these submissions.
16. As far as the proceedings in O. S No. 78 of 1954 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, and A. S. 223 and 292 of 1956, on the file of this court are concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that ft was not his contention that those decisions constituted res judicata and that it was his contention that those decisions would constitute very valuable evidence deciding the controversy in question. On the face of it, the learned counsel had to take that stand because of the difference in the provisions contained in the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948, and the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963, and as Section 9 of the C. P. Code is not applicable and also as Sec. 68 of the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963, is not applicable because sub-section (2) of that section states that the decision of a civil court (not being the court of a District Munssif or a Court of Small Causes) on any matter falling within its jurisdiction shall except in so far as such decision is inconsistent with the provisions of the said Act be binding on the parties thereto and persons claiming under them in any proceeding under the said Act before a Tibunal or Special Appellate Tribunal or a Judge of the High Court under sub-section (2) of Section 46 in so far as such matt6r is in issue between the parties or persons aforesaid in such proceedings, and the proceedings of a Tribunal under the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963, but (and?) the proceedings of a Tribunal under the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1963. Consequently, we have to proceed on the basis that the earlier decisions, namely, the decision in 0. S. 78 of 1954 on the file of the Court of the subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, and the decision of this court in A. S. 223 and 292 of 1956 do not constitute res judicata and they can be treated only as affording valuable evidence which can be taken into account in deciding the controversy between the parties.
17. Before proceeding further, we shall now state as to what exactly was decided by this court in A. S. 223 and 292 of 1956. Ex. A 3 is claimed as a certified copy of the original grant in the present case and the same claim was put forward before this court in the two appeals referred to above, and that was the reason why the Bench of this court in the judgment in question stated that that was one of those rare cases where the court had the evidence of the original grant itself. What has been marked all, Ex. A. 3, in these proceedings was marked as Ex. A. 1, in those proceedings. The Bench of this court treating the present Ex. A. 3, as the original grant came to the conclusion that the terms of the said grant made it clear that what was granted was not an entire, village, though a large extent of lands was granted. On behalf of the persons who claimed to by ryots, reliance was placed on a Short term statement for fasli 1213, that is, 1803 A. D. and also an extract from the Inam Fair Register for the purpose of putting forward the contention that what was the subject matter of grant was a whole fixed jodi village. But the Bench of this court after observing-
'Undoubtedly the entries in the several columns of the Inam Fair Registered appear to indicate that the original grant was an entire village'.
proceeded to state as follows-
'But in this case, we have the original grant itself and undoubtedly the terms of the grant should prevail over the entries in the, Inam Fair Register. That was laid down in Secretary of State for India v. Srinivasachariar, (1921)ILR Mad421(PC). In our opinion, the original grant leaves no room for doubt whatever that what was granted in Inam was a large extent of land, but not an entire village.'
Before us, the contention of the respondents herein was two-fold namely -(1) that Ex. A. 3 could not be considered .to be a grant at all; and (2) that even assuming that it constituted a grant, it did not relate to the lands in question.
18. We shall have now to consider the validity of the respective submissions. ,
19. The 'grant' is in Modi language and the same has been translated into English by the Government translator and by A3 in the English translation of the, 'grant'. The Government translator was examined in the proceedings and the correctness of the translation has been accepted by both sides. Ex. A.3, reads as ollows -
'Reason for writing this grant of certain land as inam for charities by Raja Sri Pratapsingji Raja Sahib in Sursen Era 1140, to the present and future palace officer at Kalapathur Divan, is that an Agraharam consisting of 50 -houses for brahmins shall be constructed in the land before the temple of Sri Ranganatha Swami, situated to the west of Pattukottai fort, The Agraharam shall be called in the name of late Mathosri as Umambapuram. The undermentioned land is granted for the maintenance of the Agraharam. The land known as Pattu Malavarayan Kalazi situated to the west of Pattukottai fort south to the temple of Sri Ranganatha Swami north to the low lands of the Maharajasmudram. lake and to the boundaries of Palathalai east to Kallapulikadu and west to Errumai Kollam, which remains uncultivated for the last hundred years. The four boundaries of the above land have been now fixed. The land is overgrown with trees and iq in a state of wilderness. From the abovesaid land, an extent of land wherein 750 kalams of paddy seed could be sawn and cultivated is granted. The bunds for Maharajasamudram lake is in breached condition. The portion of the bunds which are not in good condition shall be rebuilt. The Brahmins shall cultivate nanjai and punjai crops, as they like according to seasons. The land shall be enjoyed as sarvamanyam for three years from this year onwards. After that it should be modified as shrotriem. Hundred chakaras should be collected as shrotriern assessment. This amount of hundred chakaras should be utilised for feeding Brahmins on every Dwadasi day and conducting Thanneer pandal during surnmer. These charities should be carried out. Regarding this, instructions have been given to Vittal Devai Naick and Suriya Viz . They will do accordingly. They will also submit a list of the names of the deserving Brahmins and according to it sanad shall be issued in gavour of the Brahmins individually. Take a copy and return the sanad to them'.
20. The terms of Ex. A. 3 warrant the following comments :-
'1. The year of Ex. A- 3 is stated to be Sursen Era 1140, corresponding to 1740 A.D.
2. There is no reference whatever to Maharajasamudram. village as Such in Ex. A. 3.
3. Ex. A. 3 contemplated that an Agraharam consisting of 50 houses for Brahmins should be constructed in the land before the temple of Sri Ranganathaswami,. situate to the west of Pattukottai fort, and that the said Agraharam should be called in the name of late Mathosri as Umambapuram; and the grant purported to be made under Ex. A. 3 was for the maintenance of the Agraharam;
4. Ex A. 3 referred to a land by the name Patta Malavarayan Kalani and the four boundaries of the said Patta Malavarayan Kalani are given: Ex. A. 3 itself says that the suit four boundaries of the land had been then fixed and that the land was overgrown with trees end was in a state of wilderness;
5. The actual land intended to be granted was an extent of land out of Patta Malavarayan Kalani. within the four boundaries referred to therein.
6. The extent of the land so sought to be granted is stated 'land wherein 750 kalams of paddy seeds could be sown and cultivated'.
7. The grant was meant to be sarvamanyam for three years and thereafter it shall be modified as shrot term on payment of the 100 chakaras; which sum was to be utilised for feeding Brahmins on each Dwadasi day and for conducting Thanneer Panda] during summer;
8. Vittal Ranganath Devaji Naick and Suriya Vamshi to whom instructions were issued would also submit a list of names of deserving Brahmins and according to it sannad shall be issued in favour of the Brahmins individually.'
It is with reference to these features of Ex A. 3 and in particular with reference to the fact that the four boundaries of the land intended to be granted were not mentioned and thereby the subject matter of the illeged grant could not be localised and the further fact that the grant was stated to be for the main tenance of an Agraharam and was in tended to be made in the names of different Brahmins individually, whose
names were to be submitted in the future and there could not be a valid grant without the subject matter of the grant being specified and the grantees being actually named, it was contended on behalf of the respondents that Ex. A. 3, itself did not constitute a grant. We see considerable substance in this contention.
21. It is indisputable that the land sought to be granted under Ex. A. 3 was not defined or localised. No doubt there is a mention of the name of the land as Patta Malavarayan Kalani and its four boundaries. It is not the entirety of Patta Malavarayan Kalani within the four boundaries described therein that was sought to be granted, which part of Patta. Malavarayan Kalani was sought to be granted is not clear from Ex. A. 3 itself. The proceedings of the Settlement officer as well as the Tribunal show on what ground the boundaries of the property sought to be granted under EbL A. 3 could not be localized with reference to the terms of Ex. A. 3. Even the extent of the land sought to be granted out of Patta , Malavarayan Kalani had not been given. It, is true that the extent is given as 'land where-in 750 kalams of paddy seeds could- be so cultivated'. There is no evidence to show as to what would have been the extent of the land so described in Ex. A. 3 as on the date of Ex. A.3. The indefiniteness and uncertainty of this is made amply clear by the orders of the Settlement Officer and the Tribunal. In the original order of the Settlement Officer dated 16-9-1968, it was stated 'In the normal course this paddy (750 kalams of paddy) will cultivate 750 mahs or 250 acres'. The same was the contention put forward by the cultivators before the Tribunal. in the order of the Tribunal which is the subject matter of the present civil revision petition, it is stated in paragraph 7 as follows:-
'Now the village Maharajasamudram consists of nearly 2500 (acres) and this fact is not in dispute. The area stated in paragraph? as follows:-of land in which 750 kalams of paddy could be sown will have to be calculated for the interpretation of Ex. A. 3. For this the learned counsel for the objectors placed reliance on the Thanjavur District Manual published in the year 1885 under the orders of the Government by Venkatsami Rao. At page 350 of that book, it is stated that for one veli of ordinarily good land iii the delta, the quantitv of seed put down is 10 kalams and the proportion varies with the quality of soil and advantage of irrigation. One veli is 6-2/3 acres. Calculated at this rate 750 kalams of paddy could be sown in about 500 acres of Cauvery delta lands. Admittedly, Pattukottai was not irrigated by Cauvery water till the advent of CMP channel, somewhere in the year 1924 or so. Prior to that, those lands had been only rain fed lands or lake fed lands. Hence the fertility will be less. Hence in any event 750 kalams of paddy could not have been sown in more than 500 acres. Therefore-Ex. A. 3, cannot be a grant for a piece of land measuring more than 500 acres. It is not clear how the appellants claim ownership to the whole village of Maharajasamudram., which now contains 2473.66 acres under this grant, which would cover only an extent of about 500 acres. Even this 500 acres cotild not be correlated within the boundaries of the present village Maha' rajazarnudram'.
We have already referred to the description and the extent of the property given by the petitioner in the claint in O.S. No. 78 of 1954 on the Me of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur and, also in the application, under Secdoo 4 of the Tamil, Nadu Act - 31 of 1'9, before the Settlement Officer Thanjavur
22. Ex B.2 is an extract from page 1 of the irrigation Memoir of No 204 Maharajasamudram villege in that it is states as follows
'l. The situation of the village and its hamlets - The village is situated 2 miles west of Pattukottai and is covered by T. D. No. 444. It has two hamlets by name Lakshtope and Kattaikulaza with separate nathams and houses.
2. The area under the several descriptions and tenures of land - The aress under the different descriptions are -
Wet............Acres 224.51Manavari.............' 146.49Dry ..............' 1408.83Poromoboke ..........' 700.97_________________Total 2480.80 The area under the different tenures are: Ryoti ..............Acres 1429.99Iruvaram ..............' 259.96Minor Inam ..........' 7.14 Old waste ............' 82.85Poromboke ............' 700.97 _______________Total 2480.80
The extent given in Ex. B. 2 will maks a strange reading. We have already referred to the fact that the extent claimed by the petitioner herein was practically the whole of Maharajasamudram village which includes 700.97 acres of poromboke, the particulars in Ex. B. 2 show that there were ryot lands to the extent of 1429.98 acres, and Iruvaram lands to the extent of 259.96 acres. There is absolutely no evidence whatever to correlate the land mentioned in Ex. AL 3, narri6ly, the land wherein 750 kalams of paddy seeds could be sown and cultivated; with the extent claimed by the petitioner in the plaint in 0. S, No. 78 of 1954 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, and in his application before the Settlement Officer under Sec. 5 of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1963 or with the extent men tioned in Ex B. 2.
23. Having regard to all these features, we are clearly of the opinion that Ex. A. 3 cannot be said to be a grant at all in fact, the last portion of Ex A. 3 made it clear that the intention was to grant panads individually in favour of, desiring Brahmins with such sanad issued subsequently was produced before my of the authorities below. Under these the contention of the respondents herein that Ex A. 3 constituted and an intended grant or a proposal to make a grant and that it did not constitute an actual grant cannot be brushed aside and had to be accepted.
24. The next aspect to be considered is, whether even assuming that Ex. A. 3 constituted a grant, it is a grant in respect of the inam. in question with reference to which the petitioner herein put forward the claim. Some of the considerations which we have mentioned, for coming to the conclusion that Ex. A. 3 is not a grant at all, will have bearing on this question also. We have already indicated that the reference in Ex. A. 3 namely that what was purported to be granted there under was an extent of land 'wherein 750 kalams of paddy seeds could be sown and cultivated was not capable of definite delimitation or measure of an area. There has also been no correlation by the petitioner herein showing that the said extent is the same as the extent which he claimed in the plaint in 0. S. No. 78 of 1954, on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur and in his. Application before the Settlement Officer, under Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1963. Unless there has been a correlation showing that the land covered by Ex. & 3 is identical with the extent of land mentioned in the plaint in 0. S. 78 of 1954 on the file of the court of the Sub ordinate Judge, Thanjavur and in the application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1963 befori the Settlement Officer, subject of course to any alienation that might have been effected by the inamdar, it cannot be held that Ex. A. 3 is a grant in respect of the land with reference to which the petitioner has made his claim.
25. Again, we have already indicated that none of the sanads issued in favour of Brahmins individually as contemplated in Ex. A. 3 has been produced. However, an English translation of a sanad of So or sen Era 1143, corresponding to 1743 A. D. has been produced. That sanad has been marked as Ex. A. 12 in these proceedings. it merely refers to the Mamuldar or the Tahsildar collecting more from the inamdars than what was provided for in respect thereof. It also ,refers to the endowing of 130. chakaras to be collected from the inamdars for the purpose of thanneer pandals and feeding, Brahmins on Dwadasi days. It is-conceded before us that this Ex. A. 12 did notand cannot constitute a grant, though it is called a sannad. As a matter of fact, the language of Ex. A. 12 is as follows-
'Besides the above, one hundred chakaras are to be collected annually from Maharajasamudram agraharam. This amount is hereby granted by a sanad as an endowment for conducting Thanneerpandal and Dwadasi kattalais, The Maharajasamudram lake is not yet fully completed. After the completion of the lake an Agrahararn will be made. After a lapse of three years this will be granted for charities.'
The above language will indicate that even by 1743 A. D. the lake was not completed and the agraharam itself was not formed and that the endowment of 130 chakaras for conducting thanneerpandal and Dwadasi kattalais would also be made after a lapse of three years from 1743 A. D. Further Ex. A. 12 open.,% up by saying -
'Order issued to the present and the, future palace officer at Kalpathu division by Maharaja Raja Sri Piatapsingi Raja Sahib dated 1143, Soor Sen Era (equal to 1743 A. D.)
The entire people possessing the shrotriem village in the above shrotriem division, submitted a petition, stating that during the regime of the late Senior Maharaja Sahib a number of towns were gloriously conquered by him. At that time, Balaji Ranganath, a subedar was entrusted with the work, as per the orders of the Raja, for reclaiming and reconstructing the bushy and useless and insect infested area into places wherein houses could be constructed at close quarters and to improve the roads leading to Sethu and to construct Agraharams wherein Veda Shastras could be recited, and to grant lands on Shrotriern tenure for the maintenance of the Brahmins who are put up in the above Agraharams ........'
Thus, Ex. A. 12 was general in nature in respect of shrotriem villages in Kalapathur division as a whole and it cannot constitute a grant in respect of a particular inam, as claimed by the petitioner herein. In view of this, from no point of time, Ex. A. 12 can be held to import the case of the petitioner herein that Ex. X 3 constituted the original grant in the present case.
26. We have already pointed out that the Bench of this court in its judgment in A. S. 223 and 292 of 1956 had referred to the reliance placed on behalf of the ryots on a shrotriem statement for fasli 1213, that is, 1803 A. D. In that judgment, the Bench observed as follows-
'The next document of importance is an account of 1213 fasli that is, of 1803; This is a shrotriem statement, in which the recitals in the petition found in Ex. A. 135 (Ex. A. 12 in the present proceeding) are recited. Though there is a mention of villages in column 8, it is clear that the persons preparing the statement proceeded on the footing that only certain lands in the village were covered by the sanad. It is said that the exact extent of the lands in the village mentioned in the sanad are not provided. There is no list showing the exact extent of the lands for these villages in the State records. The extent of the lands have been entered in the land register as per the statements provided by the Shrotriemdars.'
Column 8 referred to by the Bench in the shrotriem statement of fasli 1213 (the Bench judgment actually refers to fasli 1213, that is, of 1803, while, the shrotriem statement filed in this case refers to fasli 1218) reads as follows- '
'The nature of the village and the taluk and the length of the measuring rod by -which the lands measured.
All the villages mentioned in the sanad are in Mannargudi taluk. The villages enjoyed by the Mahajanas (owners) are measured by the rod of the company. The lands are not divided individually but they are cultivated in common. After deducting the cultivation charges etc., from the Mahasool got from the lands, the rest of the yield is divided among them proportionately according to the pangu (share) they possess; and the shrotriem amount is paid to the sircar in proportion of the pangu they own. and thus they enjoy the lands. The exact extent of the lands in the villages mentioned in the sanad are not provided. There is no list showing the exact extent of the lands for these villages in the State records. The extent of the lands have been entered in the land register as per the statements provided by the shrotriemdars.'
For the present discussion, the more important column than Column 8 is Column 7. which reads as follows
Date and month, and year as per the sanad - 10th day of JilUy month Seer Sen Era 1143.'
This being the earliest statement available, if Ex. A. 3 of Soor Sen Era. 1140 corresponding to 1740 A. D. was the original grant, a reference to the same would have been made in this statement Ex A. 11. On the other hand, this statement makes a reference to 10th day of July month Soor Sen Era 1143 corre sponding to 1743 A. D. That means, the grant relied on must be something different from Ex. A. 3.
27. The next in order is the statement given by Shivaji Ramachandra Gatika namely, the inarn statement given in fasli 1272 corresponding to 1862 A. This has been marked as Ex A. 22 in these proceedings. The heading of Column 7, in this statement - (Matter in Tamil omitted - Ed.) Under that colurnri merely the sale deeds under which Akkabai Animal, who subsequentIy endowed the lands for the chatram, had purchased, the lands from the various pangudars are enumerated and there is no reference either to Ex. A. 3 or any other Eianad or grant therebi.
28. The next in the order is an entract from the inam Fair register, to which also a reference-has been made in the judgment of this court in - A. S. 223 and 292 of 1956. This extract has been marked as Ex. A. 10 in these proctedings. It gives the name of the inam as 'Maharajasamudram' and states 'This is a whole fixed jodi village. Under, column 2, the inam is stated to be 'personal'. Under Colurrm 10, it is stated to be 'hereditary'. Under colunrin 8. regarding the nature of the 'grant, it is stated to be 'Bhata vriti'. Under column 11', - the name of the grantor is given as 'Pratap Singh Raja'. Under -column 12, it is merely stated -
'Sikka Sarmad Register of 1809, Paimash chitta of Y' 1238 Register, of F. 1258'.
Under column 21 it is stated-
'This village was originally held in 13 pangus. The said 13 pangus were purchased by Akkal Boyi from the Chatram at Pattukattai established by Akku Boyi, 3.1/4 from Pattakirison of No. 17 in the 14th column; 4 pangus from No. 13 in 14th column, 2.1/2 from No. 3 in 14th column, 1/4 from Appanaiyangar not known, 5/16 from: No. 14 in the 14th column, 1 pangu from Ramasami Iyer not known and 1.11/16 from No. 13 in 14th column in 1813, 14, 18, 19 for 777-1-7, four deeds of sale are produced, I on stamp kadjan and 2 an plain cadjam In the chitta of F. 1226 10 5/16 an entered in the name of Akku Boy! for the Pattukottai chaftw3ri. In the register of F. 1238 and 1258 the whole village in entered in the name of bar great grandson Ramachandra Shivaji Chadika father of the party in column 16. A portion of the produce of this village is stated to have been appropriated for the support of general charitV at Pattukottai.
Sd. A. Srinivasa Rao
Dy. Collector
this is a whole fixed Jodi village included in the General Sikka Sarmad for 59 whole villages and 11 hamlets in the Pattukottai Seewai'. '
It is further seen that the inam was confirmed under Rule 7 to the holders being purchasers.
29. It is with reference to this the Bench of this Court in A. S. No. 2i3 and 292 of 1956 stated -
''Then, we come to the extract from the register of Inams, Ex A. I (Ex. A. 10 in the present proceedings). This is of the year 1884 (a mistake for 1863). It is true that there is a statement that this is a whole fixed Jodi village. . But, from Column 21, we find that this appears to have been clubbed together with 58 villages and 11 hamlets, which were probably all devoted to charitable purposes. Undoubtedly the entries in the, several colunins of the Inam Fair register appear to indicate that the original grant was of an entire village. But, in this case, we have the original grant itself, and, undoubtedly, the terms of the grant should prevail over the entries in the bum Fair Register. That was laid down In Secretary of State for India v. Srinivasachariar 1921ILR44Mad421PC.'
As we have already extracted in this judgment, the significant thing to be noticed in this context is that under column 12, Ex. A. 3 was not given as the original grant, which would have been so given, if really Ex. A. 3 happened to be the original grant. This is yet another circumstance for holding that Ex. A. 3 cannot be the grant in reqpect of the inam in question.
36. Chronologically the next document that has to be considered is the tnam title deed granted by the Inam Commissioner. The same has been mark9d as Ex A. 5 in the present case and is dated 27th July, 1864. The aid title deed reads as follows-
' 1. On behalf of the Governor in Council of Madras I acknowledge your title to the whole village of Maharajasamudram, taluk, of Paftukottai, distridl of Tanjore, claimed to be of acres 2313-88 two thousand three hundred and thirteen of dry land, five hundred and seventy two 572 of wet land and acres fifty six 56.94 of garden land besides poromboke.
2. This item being an alienation from the original family will be subject to the payment of an annual quit rent of Rs. 279. Two hundred. and seventy nine (inclusive of the amount already charged thereon) Jodi 171.9.2 which is hereby Imposed upon it in commutation of the claims of Government arising from your defective (sic) title. The inam is confirmed to you in freehold. In other words, the land will be your own absolute property to hold or dispose of as you think proper subject only to the payment of the abovernentioned quit rent.
3. If you should desire to commute the quit rent for the payment of a sum of money once for all equal to 20 years' purchase of the quit rent, you will be at liberty to do so'.
There are two significant features presefit in this title deed. one is, it makes a reference to title to the whole village of Maharajasamudram, taluk of Pattukottai. The second is, it refers'to an extent of 2313-88 acres. With reference to the former, it is clear that Ex. A. 3 cannot be the original grant, because even according to the petitioner, Ex. A. 3 does not grant the whole village of Maharajasamudram, Vut the title deed No. 444 refers to the whole village of Maharajasamudram. Secondly, with regard to the extent, what we have observed earlier with reference 'to the extent mentioned in Ex. A. 3, and that given bv the petitioner himself in the plaint in 0., S. 78 of 1954 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Thanjavur, and in the petition under Section 5 of the Tamil Nadix Act 31 of 1963 before the Settle-i ment Officer, Thanjavur will apply.
31. Ex. A. 34 is a copy of the poora Inam register. Here again under column 2, with regard to the character of the inam, it is stated as 'personal'. Under column 10, it is stated as 'hereditary'. Under column 11, under the heading 'in what year, by whom it was granted,, it is stated as I.Prathapsingh Raja Year 1743. Under column 12, relating to documents supporting the inam, including the original sanads, and other documents, it is stated-
'26 38 Fasli Paimash chitta 58 punjal bhaga vibaram'.
The significant thing to be noticed even with regard to this register Ex. A. 34 is that the grant was stated to have been made in 1743 A. D. and not in 1740 A.D. which would be the case, if Ex. A. 3 had been the original grant, with reference to the inam in question. Thus, it will be seen that at no stage prior to these proceedings, Ex. A. 3 was relied on as the grant, but only a different sanad of 1743 A. D. was relied on as the grant in relation to the present inam. Consequently, all these pieces of evidence clearly establish that Ex. A. 3 cannot be the original grant in respect of the inam in question. If that be the factual position, certainly no reliance can be placed on Ex. A. 3 for determining the character and the extent of the grant in question and one will have to go by the inam statement and the extract from the Inam fair register.
32. In fact a Bench of this court to which one of us was a party in Muthirula Mudaliar v. Nataraja Mudaliar (1974) 1 Mad W 129, has observed -
'No doubt, t he original title deed is not produced. But we have, as already pointed, the title deed issued bv the Inam Commisioner and the statement recorded by the Commissioner and also an extract from the Inam Register. The importance of the recitals in the Inam Register has been emphasised by the Judicial Committee in Arunachala Chetti v. Venkatachalapathi Gurusamigal 1919 46 Ind App 204. It is pointed out that the Inam Commission inquiry is one made on the spot after hearing witnesses and examining documents with regard to each property. It is.also pointed out that where no other evidence is available, utmost importance should be attached to the information set forth in the Inam register. This view was reiterated by the Privy Council in Sankarnarayana Pillai!s case 1947 74 Ind App230. The view of the Judicial Committee has been accepted and followed by the Supreme Court in Periayasami Gounder v. Sundaresa 1yer, : [1964]8SCR347 , in which it
pointed out. As observed by the Judicial Committee the entries made in the said register are the result of an elaborate enquirv based upon oral evidence and on the spot enquiry and scrutiny of available accounts and records'.
In this context only, we have to consider the effect of the judgment of the Bench of this court in A. S. 223 and 292 of 1956. We have already pointed out that the learned counsel for the petitioner did not contend that that decision constituted res judicata and stated that it was merely a valuable piece of evidence to be taken into account in considering the present controversy. The question decided by the Division Bench of this court on the earlier occasion was a limited one, namely, whether what was granted was a whole inam, village or less than a village, because if only it was a whole inarn village it would be an inam estate under the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948, and would be governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948. Vrith reference to that limited controversy, the Division Bench held that. the inam in question was not a whole.inam village and therefore not an inam, estate coming within the scope of the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948. In that case no contention was ever put forward that Ex. A. 3 could not have been a grant at all and that in any event even assuming that it was a grant, it could not have been a grant in respect of Lhe inam in question. In view of this, the Division Bench of this court on the earlier occasion had no opportunitV to consider whether Ex. A. 3 constituted a grant at all and even if it constituted a grant, whether it was -a grant in respect of the inam in question. Even assuming that since that decision has held that the inam. in question is not a whole inam. village and therefore not an inam estate coming within the scope of the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948 and since, the State and the respondents' represen-l' tatives were parties to those proceedings, they were bound by the same, that decision will not and cannot preclude the Ggvernment. from notifying the inam in question under the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963, because the definition of the inam estate under the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963 is different from the definition of the inam estate under the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948 and as a matter of fact, the two are mutually exclusive.
33. Section 3 (2) (d) of the Estates Land Act 1908 before its amendment by Madras Act XVIII of 1936 read as follows -
'Any village of which the land revenue alone has been granted in inam to a person not owning theudivararn thereof, provided that the grant has been made, confirmed, or recognised by the British Government, or any separated part of such village'.
The said clause as substituted by the amending Act XVM of 1936 reads as follows-
'Any Inarn village of which the grant has been made, confirmed or recognised by the Government notwithstanding that subsequent to the grant, the village has been- partitioned among the grantees or the successors in title of the grantee or grantees-'
An explanation was introduced by the Tamil Nadu Estates Land (Amendment) Act 1945 (Tamil Nadu Act 11 of 1945) as follows -
'Whereas a grant as an inam is expressed to be of a 'named village, the area which formi 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 purpose'.
Consequently, the definition of 'estate' ge contained in - Section 3 (2) (d) of the Estates Land Act 1908 was different fore its amendment by Tamil Nadu Act r. V of 11936 and the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948 was concerned with the lefttel as defined in Section 3 (2) (d) of the Estates Land Act before its amendment by the Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of t956 and the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of. 1963 was concerned with the definition of the 'est4te' as amended. bv the Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1936. The definition of the term 'estate' in clause 3 (2) (d) before its amendment by Act XVIII of .1936, dealt with the grant of the land revenue of -any village to a person not owning the. kudiwaram thereof, while the definition of the term 'estate' as amended bv the Tamil Nadu Act XVUI of 1936 dealt with a case where any inarn village has been granted. From this point of view also, though the Division Bench of this court on the earlier occasion'held that under Ex. A. 3, what was granted in inam was a large extent of land, but not the entire village. the said decision cannot be said to be decisive against the case of party respondents herein that th grant in the present case would come in the scope. of Section 3 (2) (d) of the Estates Land Act 4908, as amended by the Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1936,which is the definition of the existing inam estate under Section 2 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963, which, expression itself is covered by the defihition of the term 'inarn estate' in Sec , 2 (7) of the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963.
34. Let us assume for the s ake of arguments that in view of the earlier decision of the Division Bench of this court in A. S. 223 and 292 of 1956, it is no longer open to any of the parties to contend that the inam in question will come within the scope of the existing inam estate . Still the case can certainly come within the scope of 'new inam estate', because the definition of the term 'Inarn estate' in Sec. 2 (7) of the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963 taker, in both 'an existing inam estate' and 'a new inarn estate'.
35. We have already referred to the definition of the 'new i am estate' in Section 2 (9) of the Xamil'Nadu Act 26 of 1963 and that means a part village inarn estate. We have again referred to the definition of the term 'part village inam state' in Section 2 (11) of the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963, and in the present case both the Settlement Officer and the Tribunal have held that the inam in question is a part village inam estate and therefore a new inarn estate' and consequently an inam estate under the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963.
36. Once we have come to, the conclusion that Ex. A. 3 cannot be said to be a grant at all and that even assuming that it can be said to *be a grant, it is not a grant in respect of the inam , with which we are concerned, there is no scope for construing Ex. A. 3 as a grant in respect of the inarn in question and holding that under the terms of that grant what was granted would constitute a part village inam estate. However, even assuming that Ex. A. 3 is a. gravit in respect of the inarn in question there can be no difficulty in holding consistent with what the Division Bench had al:ready held in A. S. 223 and 292 of 1956, namely, that Ex. A. .3 did not grant an entire village, that at least a part of the village had been granted under Ex. A. 3. With reference to this position, Mr. Pt. Balasubramania lyer, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that by virtue of Explanation I (b) to Section 2 (11) of the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963, the present inam could not be said to be a part village inam estate. We have already. extracted the provisions of Section 2 (11) of the Tamil Nadu Act 26. of 1963, along with the Explanation. The main part of the, definition states that 'part village inam estate means' a patt of a village.e. the grant of which Oart has been made, confirmed or recognised by the Government. The ordinary meaning of the word 'part' as given in the dictiona
nes is as follows -
The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 6th Edn. states that 6 part means-
'Some but not all of a thing or number of things; portion allotted; share'. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary gives the following meanings for the word 'part': 'Portion of a whole - (1) that which with another or others makes up a .whole: a certain amount; but not all of anything or number of things; a portion, division, section, element, constituent, piece'.
Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary, Revised Edn., gives the following means for the word 'part' so far as is relevant for the present purpose-
'Something less than the whole, a portion; that which along with others roakes up, has made up, or may at sometime make up, a whole constituent: a member or organ, an equal quantity share'. The word 'Part' is not at word of art or a technical term conveying a special meaning. There is nothing in the scheme of the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 196.3 -or in the context of the definition of the term 'part village inam estate' justifying giving to the expression 'part' occurring therein, a meaning other than the dictionary meaning, referred to above. Therefore, even on the basis that ML A. 1 constituted a grant and the lands covered by Ex. A. 3 are situate in Maharajasamudram village, it will be a grant of a part of the village. The only grant that is taken away from the scope of this definition is what is contained in Explanation I (b) to Section 2 (11) and that explanation will come into operation only where 'a grant as inam is expressed to be only in terms of acreage or cawnies or of other local equivalent'. As a matter of fact, the very Explanation I (b) will justify the giving of the normal meaning to the word 'part' occurring in Section 2 (11).,The language of Explanation I (b) to Section 2 (11) of the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963, as already extracted, reads -
'Where as an inam is.expressed to be 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.
The very deeming provision will make it clear that but for this explanation, the grant would fall within the scope of the definition itself. Therefore if Explanation I (b) had not been there, even where the grant, as an inam. is expressed to be only in terms of acreage or cawnies or of other. local equivalent, it will still mean a part village inam estate,is defined in Section 2 (11) of the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963, and by creating a fiction, in Explanation I (b), the said grant is taken out of the definition of a part village inam estate. Similarly Explanation II also will support our conclu: sion that the word 'part' should be giveni ,its ordinary meaning.
37. The next aspect to be considered In this case is, whether Explanation (b) can come into operation at all. The said explanation refers to acreage or cawnies or other local equivalent. The expression 'other local equivalent' must neces, Barily mean equivalent to acreage or cawnies. As far as Thanjavur District 131 concerned, the local equivalent to acre age or cawines are only veli, mah and kulL The petitioner was not able to produce any authority to show that a ref-I erence to the extent of land 'wherein a partibular quantity of paddy can be sown or cultivated, ever constituted a local equivalent of acreage or cawnies w Thanjavur district and in particular in ,1740 A. D. when Ex. A. 3 came into existence. That is the reason why the petitioner was forced to rely upon a word not found in Ex. A. 3 at all, namely, virayadi. Whatever the expression 'virayadi' may mean, so long as that expression does not find a place in Ex A. 3, there is no scope for importing the conception of 'virayadi' into the grant in Ex. A. 3 and on that basis putting forward the contention that Explanation I (b) to Section 2 (11) of the Tamil Nadu Act of 26 of, 1963 will apply in the pre sent case.
38. Under these circumstances, we have necessarily to reject the contention of,the petitioner herein that the- inarn in question is not an inam estate under, Section 2 (7) read with Section 2 (9) and Section 2 (11) of the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of . 1963. Consequently, we cannot hold that the Tribunal in the present case has committed any error, much less an error of jurisdiction so as to warrant interderence by this . court under Sec. 115. C P., Code. Hencei the revision petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
39. As soon as we pronounced our judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner orally requested us for the grant of a certificate for preferring an appeal to the Supreine Court against this fludgment of ours. We have rested our conclusion on the terms of Ex. A. 3 and the admitted facts and consequently we are not satisfied that the matter involves a substantial question of law of general importance, which, in our opinion, needs to be decided by the Supreme Court Hence we reject the request of the lieamed counsel for the petitioner.
40. Revision dismissed.