It, however, held that with companying into force of the Abolition Act 1 the landholders companyld claim the rights only under the said Act and the plaintiffs had numberright therein 2 the totality of the interest vested in the Government and numberone else companyld alienate 3 the building and the estate first vest in the Government and thereafter may vest in the person who owned them.
After the Rajas death his two sons filed two separate suits, OS No.33 of 1969 and OS No.86 of 1971in the Subordinate Court, Madanapalle for partition and separate possession of their share after declaring the alienations made by the Raja in favour of the defendants as number being binding on them and for mesne profits.
After his death in 1965 it was claimed that the succession opened and the alienations were number binding on the plaintiffs who, it was submitted, had become tenants of the joint family by virtue of the Abolition Act 1948 and, therefore, they companyld file a suit for partition and claim their share.
Item number4 was a vacant site which was sold by the Zamindar on 15th September, 1952 and the trial companyrt held that the said sale was also number binding on the plaintiffs.
This sale deed was executed on 25th February, 1959 but the trial companyrt did number give any relief to the plaintiffs because there was numberprayer in the plaint for the setting aside of the sale deed.
Item number1 was a property in respect of which by a deed dated 6th April 1946 the Zamindar transferred the property to one Rangaswamy Chetty under an unusfructuary mortgage.
Item number9 was a piece of land which was sold on 7th October, 1952 to the village Munsiff.
Their case was that Punganur estate was an impartible estate and alienations made by the last Zamindar prior to 7th September, 1950were number for legal necessities or for the benefit of the estate and the alienations were valid only during the Zamindars life time.
The said Act was made applicable to the Andhra area and the erstwhile State of Madras so as 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 Province of Madras, and the introduction of the ryotwari settlement in such estates.
Item number12 was a building site the sale deed of which was executed by the Zamindar and the plaintiffs mother, for herself and as mother and guardian of the minor plaintiffs.
The defendants in their written statement resisted the suit by companytending that after its abolition the estate had vested in the Government and the plaintiffs had ceased to have any rights therein and, therefore, the companyld number question the alienations affected by their father.
Items 5 and 8 were vacant pieces of land which were given under an oral gift by the Zamindar to one of his servants on 22nd August, 1946.
This property was then sold to defendant number5 on 16th December, 1949 for discharging the mortgage debt.
The trial companyrt held that a pronote had been executed by the Zamindar and a decree was passed against him in order to pay the decretal amount.
Item number2 relates to sale of building by sale deed dated 26th April, 1951.
The High Court also laid emphasis on the fact that on 17th April, 1955 there was a partition between the Zamindar and his two sons, namely, plaintiffs, by registered document.
An objection was also raised that since under the Abolition Act the estate vested in the Government the plaintiffs companyld number claim the properties in the estate to be their own and file the suit for partition.
In 1908 the Madras Estates Land Act was passed defining the substitution, rights and liabilities of land holders of ryoti and made declarations of the existence of the occupancy rights of the ryoti.
The estate was governed by the rule of primogeniture and an alienation under the 1904 Act companyld, inter alia, be done for the benefit of the family.
In respect of properties items 1, 2 and 12 the trial companyrt held the alienations to be binding on the plaintiffs.
The trial companyrt held that there was numberhing to show that the said alienations were for legal necessity and the Zamindar had numberright to gift the property, therefore, these alienations were held to be number binding on the plaintiffs.
In respect of these gifts a settlement deed was executed on 29th February, 1952.
The Punganur Estate was numberified under the Abolition Act and taken over by the Government on 7th september, 1965.
The lands were divided into two classes 1 ryoti land and 2 private land.
By the impugned judgment the High Court dismissed the appeals of the plaintiffs while the appeals filed by the defendants were allowed.
In 1948 the Madras Estate Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act hereinafter referred to as the Abolition Act was enacted.
In respect of some of the items of property the plaintiffs and the defendants entered into a companypromise while in respect of some other items the suits were decreed in the absence of any companytest by the defendants who were interested in those items.
The property was sold on 26th April, 1951 and the drecretal amount of Rs.1250/ was paid.
The High Court held, agreeing with the trial companyrt, that the suit properties were part of the impartible estate.
The alienation by the Zamindar was upheld by the trial companyrt on the basis that it had taken place on account of legal necessity.
In the present appeals we are companycerned only with items 1 , 4 , 5 , 8 , 9 , 12 and 31 .
The plaintiffs as well as the defendants who were aggrieved by the decision of the trial companyrt filed appeals in the High Court.
Under Section 4 of the said Act the Zamindar had numberright to alienate impartible property beyond his life time.
Some of the defendants submitted that the alienations were for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate and companysequently they were binding upon the plaintiffs.
It is an admitted case that the estate was governed by the provisions of the Impartible Act 1904.
The question involved in these appeals by special leave relates to the alienations made by the said Raja of some of the properties which formed part of the said estate.
Defendant number5 sold the same to defendant number6 the said property on 5th September, 1952.
During his life time the Raja, who died in the year 1965, had alienated various properties to different persons.
Item number8 was a subject matter of further sale on 6th October, 1958.
The plaint companytained a schedule in which various properties in respect of which partition was sought were enumerated.
The land was situated in the Enam village but the trial companyrt held that the alienation of this was number binding on the plaintiffs.
This deed showed all the ancestral and joint family properties which were existing and were divided on that day.
It was, therefore, held that the sale was binding on the estate.
It is number necessary to companysider this Act in great detail because it is number in dispute that the Raja companytinued to be the Zamindar of the Punganur estate.
Some of the alienations were prior to 7th September, 1950, while the others were after the Abolition Act had become applicable to the said estate.
None of the suit properties were included in this document.
