CHIGURUPATI VENKATA SUBBAYYA Vs. PALADUGA ANJAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by special leave. Defendants 2 to 7 in the suit are the appellants in this appeal. The plaintiffs who are respondents 1 to 4 herein sued for a declaration that Survey Nos. 12 to 18 comprising an extent of 10 acres 54 cents in South Vallur village of Vijayawada Taluk are communal lands, the villagers therein having rights of irrigation and drainage. In that suit they challenged the assignment of suit lands in favour of the 2nd defendant (1st appellant) by the Estates Manager by his order of 21/12/1952. They also sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the exercise of their rights in those lands. Further they prayed for a mandatory injunction against defendants 2 to 7 directing them to restore "Agakodu" at their own cost to its original condition. The plaintiffs brought the suit in a representative capacity after obtaining the permission of the Court.

(2.) THE 2nd defendant resisted the suit on various grounds. He pleaded that he had been in possession of Survey Nos. 12 of 15 ever since 1946, after obtaining a grant from the Zamindar of the South Vallur under Patta Ex. B-8 dated 15/01/1946. According to him after the abolition of the Estates under the Estates Abolition Act, 1948 (in short the Estates Abolition Act), Survey Nos. 16 to 18 were held to be unnecessary for the original purpose by the Collector. THEreafter those Survey Nos. were granted to him by the Estates Manager under Ext. B-16. He further pleaded that during the pendency of the suit, a Patta for the suit lands were granted to him under S. 11 of the Estates Abolition Act by the Assistant Settlement Officer under Exh. B-30 dated 10/12/1955.

(3.) MR. R. V. Pillai, the learned Counsel for the appellants formulated three contentions before us viz. (1) that the conclusion reached by the 1st appellate court and affirmed by the High Court that the lands in question are communal lands has no basis in evidence (2) that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and (3) in any event the communal rights in the suit lands were extinguished under S. 32 of the Estates Abolition Act.