https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296935 Whether the lands constituted a part village inam estate or a minor inam turned on whether the original grant was expressed only in acreage or cawnies, which would attract the exclusion in Explanation 1(b) to section 2(11) of the 1963 Act. As the original grant was not produced, the Court examined collateral material but found that paimash accounts and later surveys did not prove that the grant itself was described only by extent. The descriptions as Mela Thattimal Padugai and Kizha Thattimal Padugai, together with the finding that they formed parts of two villages, supported treatment as a part village inam estate. The lands were therefore not a minor inam, and the notification under the Minor Inams Act was invalid. en-us Tue, 04 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Aug 2021 12:20:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296935 Whether the lands constituted a part village inam estate or a minor inam turned on whether the original grant was expressed only in acreage or cawnies, which would attract the exclusion in Explanation 1(b) to section 2(11) of the 1963 Act. As the original grant was not produced, the Court examined collateral material but found that paimash accounts and later surveys did not prove that the grant itself was described only by extent. The descriptions as Mela Thattimal Padugai and Kizha Thattimal Padugai, together with the finding that they formed parts of two villages, supported treatment as a part village inam estate. The lands were therefore not a minor inam, and the notification under the Minor Inams Act was invalid. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 04 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296935