NARRA SEETHARAMAYYA VARMA Vs. KOSARAJU VENKA GIRAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for consideration in each one of these appeals is whether the land of the extent of Ac. 171 in RS No. 169/1 of Uruturu village was 'ryoti land' in an 'Estate' within the meaning of these expressions in the Madras Estates Land Act. The answer to the question depends on the answer to the question whether Uruturu village was an Estate within the meaning of Section 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act. The question arises this way. The respondents sued to recover rent alleged to be due to them from the appellants in respect of this land. If the land was ryoti land within an Estate, the Civil Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the suits; only a Revenue Court would have jurisdiction to entertain them. If the land is not ryoti land in an Estate, the Civil Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the suits. After a long drawn out litigation in the course of which the parties to the actions made two earlier excursions to the High Court, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, reversing the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court, decreed the suits for rent holding that the land was not ryoti land in an Estate. The ryots have appealed to this court under Article 136 of the Constitution.

(2.) it is pertinent to mention here that Uruturu has also been notified as an Inam Estate and taken over under the provisions of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conservation into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 on January 10, 1961. The effect of the notification has also to be considered, but it may not be necessary to do so in the view that we propose to take.

(3.) As we said, the High Court in second appeal reversed the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court. The Lower Appellate Court on a consideration of the documentary evidence and the facts and circumstances of the case, found that Uruturu was an Estate within the meaning of S. 3 (2) (d) of the Estates Land Act as amended by Act XXXV of 1956. The Lower Appellate Court placed particular reliance upon an earlier judgment of the Madras High Court in respect of the very village Uruturu. In that case, the High Court had held that Uruturu village was an Estate within the meaning of Section 3 (2) (d) of the Estates Land Act. The High Court, in that case, had the great advantage of having before it the original grant which unfortunately is no longer available. The Lower Appellate Court also referred to the amendment of Section 3 (2) (d) by Act XXXV of 1956 which clarified the position. Due notice was taken of the circumstance that the burden was upon the plaintiffs to prove that the grantor had reserved some interest in the land, and granted the minor inam subsequent to the grant of the named village. To our mind, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere in second appeal even if it was inclined to take a different view of the evidence. In fact, we do not consider that a different view than that taken by the Lower Appellate Court was possible. We notice that the High Court completely lost sight of the burden of proof and proceeded as if the burden was on the defendants to establish that Uruturu was an Estate within the meaning of Section 3 (2) (d) of the Estates Land Act and that the grantor had reserved no interest in the land at the time of the original grant. The burden was wrongly placed upon the defendants by the High Court and even if it was rightly placed on the defendants, we are satisfied that the burden was adequately discharged.