K. Veeraswami, C.J.
1. This appeal raises a question of interpretation of Section 58 of Madras Act XXVI of 1948. That section was introduced by Madras Act XLIV of 1956, but had effect from 10th April, 1949. It is common ground that originally Perungarai constituted a whole village, within the limits of Sivaganga Zamindari. About 1754, parts of the village had been resumed and re-granted to a Chatram. In the Inam Settlement Proceedings, therefore the grants of such portions were not recognised as grants of whole villages and were not confirmed as such. The Sivaganga Zamin was notified and taken over with effect from 1st October, 1951, under Section 3 (b) of the Act. The State claimed to recover jodi, a sum of Rs. 630 per annum, as we are told, from the landholder, if we may use the expression in the context. But he resisted the demand on the ground that the State by virtue of the notification under Section 3 (b) of the Act and taking over of the Zamin of Sivaganga, did not acquire the right to collect jodi. This view of the landholder was upheld by the learned Judge.
2. Madras Act XXVI of 1948 was enacted with a view to repeal permanent settlement and for acquisition of the rights of the landholders in the permanently settled and certain other estates in the then province of Madras. ' Estate '. has been defined to mean a zamindari or an under-tenure or an inam estate. ' Inam estate ' as defined by Section 2(7) means 'an estate within the meaning of Section 3, Clause 2 (d) of the Estates Land Act, but does not include an inam village which became an estate by virtue of the Madras Estates Land (Third Amendment) Act, 1936.' The effect of the notification under Section 3(b) is to vest absolutely and free from encumbrances the entire estate in the Government. The power to notify and take over, having regard to the terms of Section 3 (b) read with the preamble to the Act and the definitions of 'estate' and ' Inam estate' was confined to what was granted as permanently settled estates. That means that the Act did not apply to grants other than estates, such as grants of part villages. It is not claimed that the grant here of parts of the village was either an under-tenure or an inam estate.
3. The question whether, in the circumstances, the State has the right to collect jodi will have to be approached from two standpoints, one from the scope of Section 58 itself, and the other, whether the scope, as we may interpret, of Section 58, accords with Section 27 (v), which relates to compensation for what has been taken over and vested in the Government.
4. Section 58 speaks of payment of jodi, kattubadi, etc., by the landholder of an inam village which is not an inam estate. The phraseology ' landholder of inam village which is not an inam estate' would suggest that what is intended by the section is a whole village (sic)ing the subject-matter of grant. We cannot read ' inam village ' in Section 58 as part of an inam village, because the phraseology which immediately follows inam village which is not an inam estate', that is to say, as defined in the Act. A reference to the definition of 'Inam estate ' shows that the first part of the definition takes within the scope an inam estate within the meaning of Section 3, Clause 2 (d) of the Estates Land Act, but it excludes a whole inam grant, which is usually referred to as a post-1936 estate. The Act nowhere contemplates vesting in the Government of a grant which was less than a village and therefore, not an estate or an inam estate, as defined in the Act. We are therefore of the view that Section 58 is limited in, its application to grants of whole inam villages.
5. Section 27 (v), deals with the components which go into the computation of compensation payable to a quondam landholder for the estate taken over and which is vested in the Government. This component covered by Section 27 (v) also would point to the fact that jodi payable on a part village grant which could not be notified and taken over under the Act, could not enter into the computation of the compensation payable to the landholder. We have to read the various provisions of the Act in a harmonious way, and having regard to the language of the definitions which we have referred to and of Sections 58 and 27 (v), we are of opinion that the learned Judge came to the correct conclusion that the State has no right to collect jodi from the grants of part villages in this case.
6. The appeal is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 100.